AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

TITLE (CADT) DELINEATION AND RECOGNITION PROCESS OF THE

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP):

THE CASES OF LIMAY, BATAAN AND BOTOLAN, ZAMBALES

A Group Research Paper

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in the Course

Public Administration 199.2: Research Methods in Public Administration II

by

Cortez, Ian Mico V.

Fajardo, Jacob S. Jr.
Galang, Trisha Joyce M.
Gonzales, Kianna Areeje
Lagrada, Ralph Angelo
Rivera, Lance Angelo J.

May 2018

Prof. Ebinezer R. Florano, Ph.D.

Faculty-In-Charge and Adviser

© 2018 Cortez et al.
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Ian Mico V. Cortez is a fourth-year Public Administration student at the UP National

College of Public Administration and Governance. He is the Finance and Logistics

Director of UP Circle of Administrators, the largest socio-academic organization in

NCPAG, as well as, a member of the Initiative for Genuine Involvement,

Transparency and Empowerment (IGNITE), the largest socio-political organization in

the college. Born and raised in Nagcarlan, Laguna, he is an affiliate member of UP

Ana Kalang Society, a varsitarian organization in UP Los Baños. He is also a member

of university-wide organizations namely - UP Circle of Entrepreneurs, a special

interest organization based in Virata School of Business, and UP Enkindle, a non-

partisan service- and leadership-oriented organization. In his senior year, he became

an elected member of Pi Gamma Mu International Honor Society in Social Sciences.

With a passion for knowledge, he wants to pursue graduate studies in political

science, business or law.

Jacob S. Fajardo Jr. is a fourth-year Public Administration student at the UP

National College of Public Administration and Governance. He is a member of the

UP Circle of Administrators, a socio-academic organization based in NCPAG, and the

Practice of the Administrative Leadership and Service, a socio-political organization

of the said college. He is also a recipient of Chinese Ambassador Full Scholarship and

Diwa ng Magdalo Foundation Inc. Scholarship. During his collegiate years, he was a

delegate in the Harvard Project for Asian and International Relations 2017

Conference held at the Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. In 2016, he

received full scholarship from the Office of International Linkages – University of the

Philippines System to undergo a one semester international exchange program in

Kangwon National University, Gangwon, Republic of Korea. In the near future, he

plans to pursue further education in law or business abroad.

Trisha Joyce M. Galang is in her fourth year of study in Public Administration at UP

National College of Public Administration and Governance. She is the Ways and

Means Administrator of the 26th NCPAG Student Council. Before taking a position in

the student council, Trisha served as the Vice President for Internal Affairs in UP

Sandiwa, the official organization of UP Diliman students from Tarlac,. Along with

her leadership skills, she is proud to be honed and be a member of the largest socio-

political organization of her college, the Initiative for Genuine Involvement,

Transparency and Empowerment. She is also a member of UP CIRCA, the largest

socio-academic organization in NCPAG, and UP Enkindle, a non-partisan service-

and leadership-oriented organization. Through her passion and perseverance, she

plans to pursue her education in law after graduation.

Kianna Areeje Gonzales is a graduating student from the National College of Public

Administration and Governance -University of the Philippines Diliman. She hails

from the province of Nueva Vizcaya where she acquired her early years of education.

Moreover, she is a member of the regional organization, UP Lambak (Formerly

known as UP Cagayan Valley Student Forum), which caters to UP students coming

from Region II. She is also a member of the Initiative for Genuine Involvement,

Transparency and Empowerment, identified as the largest socio-political organization

based in her home college. She is currently living a modest life and plans to pursue

graduate studies in the near future.

Ralph Angelo Lagrada is currently in his fourth year in the UP National College of

Public Administration and Governance. He served as the Second Year Batch

Representative of the 24th NCPAG Student Council in the Academic Year 2015-

2016. He is a member of the UP Circle of Administrators, the largest socio-academic

organization in NCPAG, as well as the Practice of Administrative Leadership and

Service, identified as the oldest socio-political organization in the same college. More

importantly, he is an Alphan, a brother of the Alpha Phi Beta Fraternity. With his

passion for public speaking, he plans to pursue graduate studies in the future.

Lance Angelo J. Rivera is currently in his fourth year in the UP National College of

Public Administration and Governance. He serves as the Finance Head of the

Balangay 2017-2018, the official editorial board of the graduating class of UP

NCPAG. He became a member of three different organizations in his whole stay in

UP Diliman. He served as the Director for Taxations and Collection of the Initiative

for Genuine Involvement, Transparency and Empowerment (IGNITE), the largest

socio-political organization in his home college. He is also a member of the UP Circle

of Administrators (CIRCA), which is the largest socio-academic organization based in

NCPAG, as well as the UP Enkindle, a non-partisan service and leadership-oriented,

university-wide organization. With the desire to broaden his expertise, he plans to

pursue further studies in international relations and law.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to extend our deepest gratitude and appreciation to our thesis adviser,

Professor Ebinezer Florano, Ph.D. for his guidance and mentorship during the whole

period of research.

We would also like to thank our panelists, Ms. Elyzabeth Cureg and Dr. Michael

Tumanut, for their involvement and contribution in refining our study.

Moreover, we would like to acknowledge the people who helped us with our data

gathering: Engr. Jeanette Manuel, Mr. Xyril Shane Dumageng, and Engr. Shelley

Calara of NCIP Ancestral Domain Office; Mr. Randie Bacani, Engr. Gibbs Bestoton,

Mr. Kevin Constantine Fonsesca, and Mr. Alih Ulang of NCIP Region III Office; Mr.

Robert Tan of DENR Region III Office; Mr. Butch Ragodon of LRA Region III

Office; Mr. Roger Lagman of DAR Region III Office; the provincial officials of NCIP

Bataan and Zambales; Apo Carling Dumulog of the Aeta Zambal community; and

Board Member Danilo Salonga, Chieftain Bagsik Rosales, Mr. Mario Bagsik, and Ms.

Carmelita Diego of the Aeta Magbukon community.

Finally, we express our very profound gratitude to our parents for their priceless

support and motivation all throughout the research. This study is dedicated to all the

people who believed in us. Thank you so much!

 ABSTRACT

Despite the enactment of IPRA Law in 1997 which provides legal basis for ancestral

domain claims for all IPs in the Philippines, and the defined power of NCIP, the

laggardness of the CADT delineation and recognition process is still evident brought

by the rigorous and tedious technical scheme that tend to be alien, intimidating, and

incomprehensible to Indigenous Peoples.

This study seeks to assess the effectiveness of the CADT delineation and recognition

process of the two Aeta communities - Sitio Kinaragan, Barangay Duale, and Sitio

Aryada, Barangay Kitang 2 in the municipality of Limay Bataan; and Barangay

Belbel, Barangay Burgos, Barangay Moraza, and Barangay Villar in the municipality

of Botolan, Zambales. It aimed to examine the roles and functions of the concerned

government agencies in the process namely: the National Commission on Indigenous

People, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Agrarian

Reform, and Land Registration Authority. The research also discussed the factors and

bottlenecks that affect the process, as well as, the problems and challenges dealt by

both the government agencies and the Aeta communities. To achieve these objectives,

the researchers used a qualitative approach through document analysis, interviews,

and group discussion. Data triangulation was utilized to analyze the data obtained

from the methods mentioned.

The research concluded that ideally, the CADT Delineation and Recognition process

is effective. However, there are several factors that affect the CADT delineation and

recognition process which made the process tedious, inefficient, and inconvenient.
The factors identified by the researchers are the enforcement of the process, private

entities, political interference, leadership of the Aetas and the Aeta communities’

capacity. Both Aeta communities encountered problems in data and evidence

gathering, although Aeta Zambal is geographical compared to Aeta Magbukon which

is cultural. For the bottlenecks of the process, it was found out these were lack of

funding, limited manpower, organizational structure reshuffle, and interagencies

delay. Finally, DENR, DAR and LRA were recognized as having key roles to perform

in the process with JAO as an imperative component for land registration to address

overlapping jurisdictions.

Keywords: ancestral domains, delineation and recognition process, Aeta

communities, Indigenous Peoples, NCIP

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page No.

I. Introduction 1

A. Rationale 1

B. Statement of the Problem 6

C. Research Questions 7

D. Research Objectives 8

E. Scope and Limitations 8

F. Ethical Considerations 9

G. Internal and External Validity 11

II. Review of Related Literature 14

A. Legal Framework of Ancestral Domain Rights of 14

Indigenous Peoples

B. Indigenous Land Rights and Process in Southeast 17

Asia

1. Cambodia 17

2. Indonesia 19

3. Laos 20

4. Malaysia 21

5. Myanmar (Burma) 23

6. Thailand 24

7. Vietnam 26

C. Gaps in the Implementation of IPRA 26

 D. Factors that Affect the CADT Delineation and 28
Recognition Process

1. Presence of Private Entities 28

2. Enforcement of the CADT Delineation and Titling 30

Process

3. Existence of Political Interference 32

4. Aeta Community Capacity 35

E. Summary of Related Literature 37

F. Gaps in Knowledge 41

G. Contribution to Public Administration and 41

Governance

III. Theoretical Framework 43

IV. Methodology 47

A. Research Design 47

B. Data Gathering Instruments and Administration 48

1. Documents Analysis 48

2. Interviews 49

a. Profile of the Interviewees 49

b. Schedule of Administration 51

c. Contents of the Interview Guide/ Schedule 52

3. Key Informant Interview and Group Discussion 52

a. Schedule of Administration 53

b. Contents of the Key Informant Interview and Group 53

Discussion

c. Consents of Aeta Communities 55

 C. Data Processing and Analysis 56

V. Subjects of Analysis 59

A. Introduction 59

B. Selection of Cases 60

C. Profile of the Local Government Unit 60

1. Municipality of Limay, Bataan 61

2. Municipality of Botolan, Zambales 62

D. Profile of the Beneficiaries 63

E. Profile of Agencies 66

1. National Commission of Indigenous People 66

2. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 68

3. Department of Agrarian Reform 70

4. Land Registration Authority 70

VI. Findings and Analysis 72

A. Ancestral Domain Delineation and Recognition 73

Process 2002, 2008 and 2012

1. Comparison of 2002 and 2008 Flowchart 76

2. Comparison of 2008 and 2012 Flowchart 77

B. Approved CADTs in the Philippines 80

C. Ancestral Domains in Central Luzon 83

D. Case Study 91

1. Direct Application of Aeta Magbukon in Limay, 91

Bataan

Issues and Concerns 99

2. Direct Application of Aeta Zambal in Botolan, 101

Zambales
 Issues and Concerns 107

3. Summary of the CADT Application of both 109

Aeta Magbukon and Aeta Zambal

E. Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order 113

F. Group Discussion and Key Informant Interview 117

1. Aeta Magbukon of Limay, Bataan 117

2. Aeta Zambal of Botolan, Zambales 118

G. National Commission on Indigenous People 121

1. Ancestral Domain Office 121

2. Regional Office III Central Luzon 126

H. Inter-agencies: DAR-DENR-LRA 128

VII. Conclusions and Recommendations 130

A. Conclusions 130

B. Recommendations 136

C. Areas for Further Research 138

Bibliography 139

Appendix 159
 LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Page No.

1 AD & AL Delineation and Recognition Flowchart 2012 3

2 Theoretical Framework of the Study 43

3 Data Triangulation 56

4 Map of Limay, Bataan 61

5 Map of Botolan, Zambales 62

6 AD & AL Delineation and Recognition Flowchart 2002 73

7 AD & AL Delineation and Recognition Flowchart 2008 74

8 AD & AL Delineation and Recognition Flowchart 2012 75

9 Summary of Approved CADTs in the Philippines by Year 81

10 Summary of Approved CADTs Per Region 83

11 Map of the Entire Region III 83

12 Summary of the Entire Region III CADTs/ CADTeables 86

13 Map of Registered & Approved CADTs, Surveyed AD & 87

CADTeables in the Province of Bataan

14 Map of Registered & Approved CADTs, Surveyed AD & 89

CADTeables in the Province of Zambales

15 Summary of CADT Categories in Bataan and Zambales 90

 LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page No.

1 Schedule of Research Strategy 54

2 Population of Two Barangays in Limay , Bataan 64

3 Population of Four Barangays in Botolan, Zambales 65

4 Distribution (No. of CADTs) of Approved in the Philippines 80

by Year

5 Distribution (No. of CADTs) of Approved in the Philippines 82

Per Region

6 Breakdown of CADT Categories in Region III 85

7 Summary of the CADT Application of both Aeta-Magbukon 109

and Aeta-Zambal
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Meaning/Interpretation

AD Ancestral Domain

ADO Ancestral Domain Office

ADSDPP Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development Protection Plan

AHRC Asian Human Rights Commission

AL Ancestral Land

CADC/s Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim/s

CADT/s Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title/s

CALC/s Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim/s

CALT/s Certificate of Ancestral Land Title/s

CARL Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

CDC Clark Development Corporation

CDT Community Delineation Team

CL Customary Laws

CLT Collective Land Titles

CLOA Certificate of Land Ownership Awards

CNO Certificate of Non-Overlap

CSC Community Service Center

DAR Department of Agrarian Reform

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ICC/s Indigenous Cultural Community/ies

IEC Information and Education Consultation

IKSP Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices

ILO International Labor Organization

IP/s Indigenous People/s

IPRA Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act

IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations

JAO Joint Administrative Order

LAO Legal Affairs Office

LGUs Local Government Units

LLHI LLL Holdings Incorporated

LMS Land Management Services

LRA Land Registration Authority

NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

NGOs Non-Government Organizations

NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System

PAF Philippine Air Force

PDT Provincial Delineation Team

PO Provincial Office

RO Regional Office

RRB Regional Review Body

SPAR Social Preparation Accomplishment Report

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 Chapter I

Introduction

A. Rationale

The Philippine culture is an amalgamation of diversity and eminent heritage attributed

to the existence of Indigenous Peoples (IPs). One of the widely known ethnic factions

of IP groups is the “Negritos” locally known as “Aetas”. Their population

accumulates to roughly 90,000 which are subdivided into 25 ethnolinguistic groups

scattered across the archipelago mostly in Luzon (Tindowen, 2016). Aetas are

depicted as one of the most disadvantaged groups in the Philippines as rooted in their

evident distinction from the mainstream society (Asian Development Bank, 2002).

They are also considered to be the most affected sector in terms of development and

become part of people who are landless, unemployed, and marginalized (Manaligod,

1990).

In order to recognize the inalienable rights and encompass all the needs of the

members of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous People, the government

implemented the Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as “The Indigenous

Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997” (IPRA). Along with this, the National Commission on

Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), an administrative and implementing agency under the

Office of the President has the jurisdiction of all ancestral domain claims among other

concerns related to IPs (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997; De Vera, 2007).

Furthermore, the IPRA provides tenurial security to the IPs with issuance of the

Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). The CADT refers to a title formally

1
recognizing the rights of possession and ownership of IPs over their ancestral domains

identified and delineated in accordance with this law (IPRA, Chapter III, Sec. 3c).

With the passage of IPRA in 1997, the law provides a process of titling of ancestral

domains and a basis for filing new claims to IPs which included the submission of a

valid perimeter map, evidences, and proofs that recognize the rights of IPs over their

ancestral domains (De Vera, 2007).

In pursuant of the law, the NCIP has formulated the omnibus rules on delineation and

recognition of ancestral domain and lands. The book provides the general and specific

provisions on the CADT delineation process. It explains the step-by-step procedure,

and the corresponding requirements throughout the whole application process. Since

the establishment of the NCIP, the Omnibus Code has already been revised three

times until the 2012 version.

2
Figure 1: AD & AL Delineation Recognition Flowchart 2012

3
The NCIP Administrative Order No. 4 Series of 2012 is the revised omnibus rules and

delineation and recognition of ancestral domains and lands. The change from the 2008

to 2012 flowchart has made several revisions on the process itself. In this span of 4

years, the revisions made were the saturation of steps in order to recognize a step-by-

step process and to avoid the collision with other steps. Moreover, the revisions

allotted specific number of days to ensure that the processes are observed properly.

Hence, it created a much detailed process map pursuant to the Republic Act No. 9485

or the Anti-Red Tape Act that aims to promote integrity, accountability, proper

management of public affairs, and public property as well as to establish effective

practices aimed at the prevention of graft and corruption in the government.

The NCIP defines ancestral domains as territories which are not limited in its physical

space but also includes the whole environment. This includes the cultural bonds of

Indigenous Peoples blossomed within the confines of their areas and consequently

serve as the basis of claims of ownership (IPRA, p. 2). However, the definition fails to

capture the epistemological features of ancestral domain in the notions of identity,

property, continuity and politics (Erasga, 2008). The ancestral domain is not exclusive

on a parcel of land, territory, economic or biological needs but also the basis of

cultural identity of all Indigenous Peoples (Prill-Brett, 1994; Bandara, 2002, Erasga,

2008).

Moreover, the IPRA was enacted in order to identify, delineate, and recognize

ancestral lands/domains but the inefficiency of the performance of the NCIP in

performing its services to the Indigenous Peoples has been evident because of the

Commission’s incompetency. Despite the attempts of several administrations to fully

4
implement the IPRA, its functions have remained unfulfilled because of budgetary

allocations even up until now (Carino & Maranan, 2016). The NCIP was evaluated as

a poor-performing agency because of its staff who are poorly trained and lacks field

experience or appropriate cultural sensitivity to handle land conflicts and issues

regarding access to resources affecting indigenous communities (Office of the

President’s Performance). In addition, the whole Ancestral Land and Domain titling

system is still deeply rooted in the old elitist system of land administration; the

process for filing a claim is very complex and entails a staggering cost to complete

(De Vera, 2007). Twenty (20) years since the IPRA was enacted, it still remains to be

just a written document and continue to fester as many indigenous communities still

awaits to resolve their land titling problems.

Throughout the history of land titling in the Philippines, two landmark legislations

have been enacted that cater in addressing social justice and equity affecting farmers

and Indigenous Peoples. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1998

provided opportunities for farmers to own the agricultural lands they are cultivating.

On the other hand, as discussed, the IPRA recognizes the rights and ownership of

Indigenous Peoples over ancestral domains for their basic sustenance and survival

(JAO DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP, 2012).

Before the existence of NCIP, the Commonwealth Act (CA) 141 otherwise known as

the Public Land Act, established the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR) as the primary government agency with the exclusive jurisdiction

over all lands of public domains. Other lands placed by laws and Executive Issuances

are under the jurisdiction of some agencies such as the Department of Agrarian

5
Reform (DAR). The Land titles issued by DENR and DAR followed the provisions of

Land Registration Act while the NCIP’s CADTs are recorded with the Register of

Deeds. In turn, the complex implementation schemes have been shrouded with

operational issues and overlapping jurisdiction that resulted to conflicting claims of

land ownership (JAO DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP, 2012).

Thus, the guidelines of Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order (JAO)

No.1 Series of 2012 was created to address these conflicting jurisdictions over land

registration. However, the JAO claims to be ineffective and further creates

bottlenecks that slow down the process of registering ancestral domains. With the

existence of JAO, the researchers will dwell on the effectiveness of these guidelines

and its relevance to the overall CADT delineation and recognition process of the

NCIP.

In summary, the inability of the government, conflicting policies, capacity gaps, and a

questionable commitment to empower IPs affect the implementation of the IPRA to

address the problems and concerns of our IP communities (De Vera, 2007).

B. Statement of the problem

Despite the enactment of IPRA Law in 1997 which provides legal basis for ancestral

domain claims for all IPs in the Philippines, and the defined power of NCIP, the

laggardness of the CADT application process is still evident brought by the rigorous

and tedious technical scheme that tend to be alien, intimidating, and incomprehensible

to Indigenous Peoples (Burton & Echavez, 2011; ICERD, 2009). Required

6
documents, most of which, are laden with technicalities and are written in English,

must be passed through the many stages and levels provided by the NCIP (Talabis,

2017; De Guzman, 2015; Balita, 2009; GMA News, 2009).

C. Research Question

Main Research Question

How effective is the CADT delineation and recognition process in the cases of

Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales?

Specific Research Questions

1. What are the factors that affect the CADT delineation and recognition

process?

2. What are the significant differences in the CADT application process

between Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales?

3. Where are the process bottlenecks? What are the reasons and situations

causing these bottlenecks?

4. What are the key roles of the DENR, DAR, and LRA in the CADT

registration process? How did the government address their

overlapping jurisdictions?

5. What are the areas of improvement for the CADT delineation and

recognition process?

7
D. Research Objectives

Main Research Objective

To assess the CADT delineation and recognition process of the NCIP in the

cases of Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales.

Specific Research Objectives:

1. To enumerate and assess the factors that affect the CADT delineation

and recognition process,

2. To examine the significant differences between the processes in the

CADT application process between Limay, Bataan and Botolan,

Zambales,

3. To identify the bottlenecks in the process and its causes,

4. To determine the key roles of the DENR, DAR, and LRA in the CADT

registration process and their overlapping jurisdictions; and

5. To recommend measures to improve CADT delineation and

recognition process.

E. Scope and Limitations

This research focused on the assessment of the effectiveness of the CADT delineation

and recognition process of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. More

specifically, only the cases of the direct application of Aeta Magbukon of Limay,

Bataan and Aeta Zambal of Botolan, Zambales. The paper also discussed the roles

8
played by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of

Agrarian Reform, and Land Registration Authority in the process and the two cases.

The data for analysis were gathered from February 2018 until April 2018. Thus, the

generalizability of the effectiveness of the process was only limited to the

aforementioned cases.

F. Ethical Considerations

Most research methodologies used by non-indigenous researchers have been

inappropriate and insensitive; often ignoring the willingness of the respondents.

Moreover, many IPs have already become reluctant to participate in these research

activities because direct benefits are not visible (Gower, 2015). The researchers

acknowledged that studies involving Indigenous Peoples should involve utmost

sensitivity and careful planning. For the purpose of this research, group discussions

and interviews were conducted as the primary data gathering tool to acquire and

identify the factors that affect the CADT delineation and recognition process of the

NCIP. The data collection methods espoused the principles of ethical considerations

by Alan Bryman (2012) from his book entitled Social Research Methods. The

principles are formulated through the analysis of the guidelines accepted by

professional social sciences research associations.

The safety of those who participated in the study and the respect for their dignity have

been given paramount importance. The group discussions were conducted in a

favorable environment without any stressors that can harm the overall being of the

9
IPs, both physical and psychological. Any offensive, discriminatory, or other

derogatory language were avoided in the interview questions.

The interviews and group discussions were limited to the personal acceptance of

participants. The willingness of the participants was measured through their full

consent prior to the interview. Moreover, the researchers recognized the level of

confidentiality of the research data. The acquired information especially the

anonymity of the participants were used for data analysis and restricted for academic

usage of the researchers.

In order to avoid possible deception and ambiguity about the objectives of the

interview and group discussions, the researchers informed the participants beforehand

regarding the purpose of the research and its possible significance to the community.

Further information included the working title of the study, implications of the

discussions, and affiliations of the researchers such as, but not limited to, the

University of the Philippines, National College of Public Administration and

Governance, and a brief description of the course subject, PA 199 (Research Methods

in Public Administration).

Prior to the interview, the researchers coordinated with the NCIP regarding other

ethical considerations. Before the conduct of group discussions and research

involving Indigenous Peoples, cultural integrity should be ensured. Hence, the

researchers acquired certification of Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices

10
(IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation which is pursuant

to the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 2012.

Furthermore, the study recognized the importance of effective communication since

certain barriers such as language can contribute to a conflict of interest and

understanding. Thus, aside from English, the questions and discussions were

translated to Tagalog since it can be considered as one of the widely known languages

in the Philippines. The researchers also asked residents regarding the most suitable

language that can be used and finally came up with the most effective, and

appropriate questionnaires. Lastly, the acquired personal data were not disclosed

through any means. The information were subjected to objective and impartial

analyses throughout the research study.

G. Internal and External Validity

The internal validity measures the level of confidence among the variables; and the

causes and effects which are present in a study. For the purpose of this research, it

analyzes the relationship between the system of CADT Delineation and Recognition

Process of the NCIP and the ancestral land rights of the Aeta communities enshrined

in the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997. The researchers initially established

the existence of causal relationship through the Covariation of the Cause and Effect

(Shuttleworth, 2009).

11
To illustrate, we can create a basic syllogism between these two variables. If there is

no ancestral domain titling process, it can simply imply the absence of the Certificate

of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT) being released by the NCIP; thereby the ancestral

land rights of the IPs stated in the IPRA will also be non-existent as it is technically

useless. Same case when the absence of the IPRA transpires, the mandates of NCIP

including the registration of the CADT will be gone. Although the relationship is

limited to a binary connection, it can already establish that the existence of the NCIP

alone can be attributed with the enactment of IPRA as its legal backbone.

First of all, the independent variable in this study were the factors in the systems and

procedures of CADT delineation and recognition while the dependent variable

accounts to the effectiveness of NCIP in the CADT delineation and recognition

process. The researchers acknowledged that perfect internal validity is almost

unattainable because of the existence of intervening and extraneous variables,

however; the researchers increased the validity of the interviews and group

discussions by merit and fitness selection. Under systems and procedures, the research

design included a set of specific factors to measure the changes or progress in the

CADT delineation and recognition process.

The external validity of a research refers to the approximate truth of conclusions

which can be used as generalizations for other groups of people and data. Since this is

a qualitative research, the researchers selected participants based on their relevance

and relationship to the topic of study. To expound, the group will administer group

discussions and interviews from two Aeta communities from Limay, Bataan and

12
Botolan, Zambales. The sample was derived from the population of the Indigenous

Peoples in the Philippines.

Considering the sufficient number of the participants, the findings and analyses of the

study can be used as representation of other factions of Indigenous Peoples who are

actually applying for their CADT. As the NCIP is the sole government agency that

caters for the ancestral domain titling process, the results of the study provided

sufficient means to conclude for almost all members of the Indigenous Peoples

claiming their lands under the Philippine context. In terms of systems and procedures,

the conclusions of the study such as the possible bottlenecks in a process can be

operated in the context of other system management present in different

organizations.

13
 Chapter II

Review of Related Literature

This chapter provides a synthesis of researches and studies conducted that supports

the assessment of the joint role of the NCIP, DENR, DAR, and LRA — their

mandates in CADT Delineation and Titling Process. The Review of Related Literature

is divided into four main parts. The first and second section discuss the legal

framework of ancestral domain rights of Indigenous Peoples and the indigenous lands

rights in Southeast Asia. Next, the third section tackles the gaps in the implementation

of IPRA and its consequences. The fourth section, on the other hand, describes the

different factors that CADT Delineation and Recognition Process. This chapter

further provides a brief summary and critical evaluation of the literature reviewed.

A. Legal Framework of Ancestral Domain Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The International Labor Organization (ILO) is the only legal international treaty

which is currently wholly dedicated to the protection of Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and

provides the basic legal standards to protect the IPs’ cultures, traditions, and customs

(ILO’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989). However, in spite of the

tremendous advances, the ILO Convention No. 169 has not been ratified by any

Southeast Asian Countries including the Philippines (United Nations, 2001). Even

though the Philippine Legislature has not yet ratified the Convention, it served as an

important political instrument for the development of indigenous rights (De Vera,

2007; Xanthaki, 2003). The Philippines adopted the ILO Convention No. 169 on June

27, 1989 and entered into force on September 5, 1991 (ILO Convention 169, 1989). It

14
has been also used as a model in the creation of the Republic Act 8731 or also known

as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) 1997. The Philippines has led the way

in the Southeast Asia region as it had pioneered the most radical policy reform as a

tenurial instrument to recognize the ancestral domain rights of Indigenous Peoples

(De Vera, 2007).

The Philippines introduced the IPRA in 1997, which was based on ILO Convention

No 169. Article 14 of the ILO Convention No 169 recognizes “the rights of ownership

and possession of the peoples concerned over the lands that they traditionally

occupy.” It establishes that ancestral domain/land rights should be utilized to protect

the indigenous lands, including lands in which the IPs do not occupy exclusively (Art.

14 ILO Convention 169, 1989). The IPRA provides a wide range of rights over

ancestral domains: (1) they have the right to ownership over their lands and resources;

(2) the right to occupy and develop their lands; (3) the right to oppose displacement;

(4) and the right to regulate the entry of migrants (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act,

Republic Act No 8731). Furthermore, it provides for a process of titling of lands

through the issuance of Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT). Although

the IPRA allows issuing CADT to Indigenous Peoples that prove ancestral domain

claims, the IPs are excluded from the provisions of “Free and Prior Informed

Consent”1 if they have not secured a CADT (De Vera, 2007).

However, the IPRA’s constitutionality was brought into question raised in the 1998

case, Cruz vs. Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources (GR No. 135385).

1
Free and Prior Informed Consent is a “consensus of all members of the IPs which is determined in
accordance with their respective customary laws and practices that is free from any external
manipulation, interference and coercion and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the
plan/program/project/activity, in a language and process understandable to the community.” (IPRA
1997)

15
Article XII (2) of the 1987 Constitution states “all lands of the public domain… and

other natural resources are owned by the state. With the exception of agricultural

lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.” This provision became the

basis of the claim where the IPRA contradicted the Regalian doctrine which according

to this doctrine all public lands belong to the state (Keienburg, 2012; Xanthaki, 2003).

It was amounted to an unlawful deprivation of the ownership and possession of the

states by granting of rights on those ancestral domain/lands (Cruz v Secretary of the

Environment and Natural Resources, GR No. 135385). The decision favored the

constitutionality of the IPRA because the indigenous lands were private property

rights of IPs and were not affected by the Regalian doctrine (Keienburg, 2012;

Novellino, 2000).

Moreover, there are laws which restrict the rights of Indigenous Peoples on their

ancestral domain. First, the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act

1992 allows the converting of ancestral domains/lands into national parks and

reserves for the sake of ecotourism (Republic Act No 7686). It defines protected

landscapes/ seascapes as “areas of national significance, providing opportunities for

public enjoyment through recreation and tourism within the normal lifestyle and

economic activity of these areas” (Republic Act No 7686). One of the criticisms of

the IPRA is that even though it recognizes the rights of IPs over their ancestral

domain, leases for logging and mining continue to exist even on recognized

indigenous ancestral domains (Novellino, 2000). Next, the Mining Act 1995 allows

mineral exploitation in areas of ancestral domain of the IPs in which mining activity

was previously prohibited (Republic Act No 7942). Due to that, it serves as an

attraction to foreign companies and they have expressed great interest in mining

16
projects even though it will cause catastrophic effects to the lives of IPs. Thus, the

traditional day-to-day activities of IPS such as roaming the forest, and harvesting

crops to sell in the lowlands are regarded as illegal activities (Xanthaki, 2003). This

Act is strongly opposed by the IPs, local communities, and churches because they

believe that it will lead to environmental degradation and pollution, as well as loss of

agricultural lands and waters sources (Xanthaki, 2003).

B. Indigenous Land Rights and Process in Southeast Asia

Access to land rights over their land and resources are key elements for Indigenous

Peoples to be able to survive. For over two decades, land rights have been the major

demand of international Indigenous Peoples’ movements (Jensen, 2004). In the

Southeast Asian region, no country has ratified yet the ILO 169 Convention

concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (United Nations,

2001). The Convention served as an important international mechanism for the

development of indigenous rights particularly the land rights of Indigenous Peoples in

Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, Indigenous land ownership has not been protected in

most parts of the region (Xanthaki, 2003; Bhattarai & Minority Rights Group

International, 1999). These countries are also cognizant about the limited possessory

rights which provide little protection for indigenous land rights.

1. Cambodia

In Cambodia, the 1993 Cambodian Constitution has no specific reference to

Indigenous Peoples, nor does it contain any article or provision explicitly relating to

17
Indigenous Peoples’ rights. The Constitution only refers to the rights of “Khmer

citizens”, however, some constitutional provisions are relevant for IPs. For example,

collective ownership of immovable property is guaranteed in Article 44, which also

recognizes the right to fair and prior compensation for both individual and collective

owners. Like the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) in the Philippines,

Cambodia had used the Convention in drafting legislation, the Royal Decree No.

NS/RKM/0801/14 also known as the Cambodian Land Law 2001 (UN Center on

Transnational Corporations, 1994). This law provided a wide range of rights to IPs

including the establishment of IPs’ residences and carrying out traditional agriculture

(Cambodian Land Law 2001, Article 25). Article 26 of the Cambodian Land Law

states that the indigenous lands “is granted by the State to the indigenous communities

as collective ownership. This collective ownership includes all of the rights and

protections of ownership as are enjoyed by private owner” (Cambodian Land Law

2001, Article 26). However, the Cambodian Land Law allows for a possible transfer

of part of the indigenous land to an individual, contrary to the Article 26 which

proclaims indigenous lands as a communally-owned by the indigenous community.

The Land Law provides the segregation of indigenous lands to identify the lands that

are already traditionally occupied (Cambodian Land Law 2001, Article 25).

In addition, the law also states that “no authority outside the community may acquire

any rights to immovable properties belonging to an indigenous community” which

stops the arbitrary intervention of indigenous lands by private entities (Cambodian

Land Law 2001, Article 28). In other words, land tenure in indigenous communities

is based on informal and de facto possession rights, which means they have no legal

18
rights to their land. Traditionally, indigenous communities have not sold land and land

could not be sold if someone left the village (Ironside, 2004).

Moreover, the 2009 Sub-decree on Procedures for Registration on Indigenous Lands

provides land tenure rights to indigenous communities and the mechanism for the

registration of collective land titles (CLT) to complement the 2001 Land Law. As a

pre-condition to the grant of CLT, communities must be registered as a legal entity,

which proves their customary occupancy to that collective land (Carino & Maranan,

2016). The registration involves different stages with several steps and institutional

actors at each stage, making it so tedious that up to now only 15 indigenous

communities in three provinces - Ratanakiri, Mondulkiri and Kampong Thom - have

gotten their approved CLT from the Ministry of Land Management and from the

Ministry of Urban Planning and Construction (MLMUPC).

2. Indonesia

In Indonesia’s legal framework regarding Indigenous Peoples: the third amendment to

the Indonesian Constitution recognizes Indigenous Peoples’ rights in Article 18b-2

which provides that, “The State recognizes and respects traditional communities along

with their traditional customary rights as long as these remain in existence and are in

accordance with the societal development and the principles of the Unitary State of

the Republic of Indonesia, and shall be regulated by law,” while Article 28I(3) states

that, “The cultural identities and rights of traditional communities shall be respected

in accordance with the development of times and civilisations” (Wattimena-Shirane,

2014). The concerns regarding the indigenous land rights in Indonesia are: indigenous

19
land title are only given to individuals except state forests contrary to the

communally-owned meaning of indigenous lands; and the administrative procedures

in protecting the land rights of IPs are deficient (Colchester, Sirait & Wijardjo, 2003;

Szczepanski, 2002). The indigenous lands cannot be registered which overlaps other

rights, even though the right of possession to customary lands is formally recognized

(United Nations, 2001; Colchester, Sirait & Wijardjo, 2003). The participation of IPs

regarding land issues is also limited and they have no representative institutions with

legal knowledge to reclaim their lands that has been used by private companies as

forest concessions (Colchester, Sirait & Wijardjo, 2003; UN CERD, 2003).

The Indigenous Communities also do not have the rights to reject the imposition of

the government for allowing private companies from performing logging activities on

their indigenous lands, although such activities have adverse effects on their way of

living (Vinding et al, 2003; Colchester, Sirait & Wijardjo, 2003). These deprivation of

land rights to IPs by the Indonesian government had led to transmigration which

spread poverty, deforestation and soil erosion, destruction of IPs economies, forced

assimilation of IPs, and violence to the indigenous community (Vinding et al, 2003).

3. Laos

Communal land titling (din louam mou in Lao) is in its infancy in Laos. As of July

2012, it was only established for five villages in Sangthong District, Vientiane

Province, which together received communal land titles for 2189 hectares of land

(mainly forest land). According to Article 22 of the Land Law and the Prime

Minister’s Office, National Land Management Authority Ministerial Direction

20
564/NLMA (6 August 2007), these titles can become permanent after three years if

there are no disputes raised upon them. The land, however, are still not allowed to be

sold (Foppes, 2011; Bounmany et al., 2012). On the other hand, the Lao state

continues to claim ownership over all the lands in the country, even if private land

trading is ubiquitous and condoned by the government. Thus, technically,

communities are not receiving full ‘ownership’ of land, regardless of the kind of title

they receive. There are, however, elements of the permanent title model in Laos

(Baird, 2013).

Moreover, the Agricultural Development Master Plan 2000 had relocated the farmers

to indigenous lands (Xanthaki, 2003; Anti-Racism Information Center, 2002). This

master plan translated into massive relocation of shifting cultivators to indigenous

lands where many IPs live. There was also a policy that led to the relocation of IPs

due to consolidation of villages stating that there should be no less than 50 families in

each village. These relocations have placed the ecosystem in danger which led to the

further impoverishment of IPs and they were required to move to other villages

(Xanthaki, 2003; Anti-Racism Information Center, 2002).

4. Malaysia

The Racial Discrimination Convention has not been signed by few South-East Asian

countries, including Malaysia. The convention ensures that the rights of Indigenous

Peoples should not be discriminated on the basis of race (United Nations Treaty

Collection). However, IPs in Malaysia have been facing discriminations when it

comes to land rights (Ragazzi, 1997). Problems arise with the legal aspect of the IPs’

21
native customary rights. Those who are living in the Malayan Peninsula and in the

states of Borneo are subjected to different laws (Xanthaki, 2003). In Malayan

Peninsula, the “Orang Asli” peoples do not have the right to own the lands even

though they have traditionally occupied the land since time immemorial (Aboriginal

Peoples Act (APA) of 1954 -- An Act to provide for the protection, well-being and

advancement of the aboriginal peoples of West Malaysia). The difficult and rather

vague definitions of who is an Orang Asli in the Federal Constitution and the APA

jeopardize the continued existence of the Orang Asli as Indigenous Peoples. The

qualifications put in place for the Orang Asli to “prove” that they are natives have

further weakened their status and right to self-determination in Malaysia (Masalin,

2014).

Unlike in the states of Sabah and Sarawak, IPs have the native customary rights to

occupy and cultivate their indigenous lands, although such rights do not amount to

ownership (Sabah Malaysia Land Ordinance, 1930; Sarawak Malaysia Land Code,

1958). There are two definitions of a native for Sabahans and this led to some form of

confusion. There is the Federal Constitution definition and the interpretation

ordinance - the Sabah Cap 64 definition. Confusion arises as some laws use the

Constitutional definition while others utilize the State Ordinance definition. On the

other hand, the main legislation for the administration of land in Sarawak is the

Sarawak Land Code 1958. One of the main features of the Sarawak Land Code is to

clarify the definition of the native customary rights to land, which cannot be created

after January 1, 1958. The narrow legislative definitional requirement as to what

constitutes NCR, mainly based on cultivation and settlement, ignores the traditional

features of land use by the natives in Sarawak. These natives would maintain and

22
preserve, but not cultivate, vast areas within their territories for hunting, gathering,

recording their history, and commemorating significant events and individuals

(Masalin, 2014; Carino & Maranan, 2016). Even though positive steps have been

taken by the states of Sabah and Sarawak, discrimination against IPs continues

considering the native customary rights are still treated to be inferior of the rights of

non-IPs especially in the hierarchy of land rights (Osman, 2000). The rights to

consultation and information dissemination of IPs are also ignored elsewhere in

Malaysia (Sabah Malaysia Land Ordinance, 1930; Chakma & Jensen, 2001).

5. Myanmar (Burma)

The upland areas of Myanmar- inhabited by over 40% of the country’s population and

covering about 50 to 60% of its territory - are among the most ethnically diverse and

resource-rich regions in Southeast Asia. With many armed ethnic groups still fighting

the central government, these frontier areas became notorious for the world’s longest

running civil wars. The upland areas - now officially part of Myanmar state territory -

were part of a vast non-state space which Scott (2009) termed Zomia. Encompassing

the uplands of mainland Southeast Asia and Southwest China, Zomia provided a

sanctuary for diverse groups of people who wanted to evade state building projects in

the valleys. However, since the second half of the 20th century, Zomia has

experienced major transformations, described as the last enclosure: “The sovereign

nation-state is now busy projecting its power to its outermost territorial borders and

mopping up zones of weak or no sovereignty” (Scott, 2009). Even though little direct

reference to Indigenous Peoples was made in domestic legislation and the term is not

yet widely used, ethnic civil society advocates increasingly identify themselves as

23
‘indigenous’. They are not identified as (national or ethnic) minorities but as

Indigenous Peoples in order to reinforce their legitimate claim to the lands and their

right for self-determination (Eizenberger, 2016).

In addition, the internal displacement policy of Burma resulted to tens of thousands of

displaced Indigenous Peoples and they have fled as refugees and undocumented

migrants in 2001 alone (Xanthaki, 2003; Anti-Racism Information Center, 2002).

Also the “Burmanization Policies”, promoted by special development programs on

land rights, have broken up minority and Indigenous Peoples and have forcibly

relocated them to new settlement (Clarke, 2001).

6. Thailand

Indigenous Peoples in Thailand have been subjected to stereotyping and

discrimination. The official term chao khao has been used since the late 1950s, with

the earlier term chao pa (“forest people”), which was used to denote the non-Thai

minority groups. For the Thais, pa – meaning “forest” – has the connotation of “wild,”

which is generally conceived in opposition to the “civilized.” The adoption of the

term chao khao was part of a nation-building process in which national identity and

definition of “Thai-ness” was linked to cultural traits, particularly Buddhism, Thai

language, and the monarchy (Pinkaew, 2014). The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples may

not be afforded to protect their indigenous lands in practice even though the

individual ownership of lands is protected in Thailand, due to limited legal support

from the government and lack of citizenship. The Indigenous communities are also

having a hard time to claim their lands because of lack of collective ownership

24
(Xanthaki, 2003). As the ILO 169 Convention has proclaimed, the indigenous lands

will lead to partial or total loss when the lands held communally and collectively

owned by the IPs are divided and transferred to non-IPs (ILO CEACR, 1989). Since

the National Parks Act 1961 handed control over to the Royal Forestry Department of

Thailand, arguably, the failure of the IPs to establish a collective indigenous

ownership will lead to community struggle for control over their traditional lands and

resources (Vinding et al, 2003). In view of the recent development, indigenous

communities’ consultation and information dissemination have been made to explain

the basis of the traditional practices and to address the stereotypes (Laungaramsri,

2000).

Although in May 2011, the Government passed the Regulation of the Prime Minister's

Office on the Issuance of Community Land Title Deeds. The regulation allows

communities to apply for a Community Land Use Permit, which is the only

community forest tenure instrument for Thailand. The essence of this regulation is to

legally allow communities (both highland and lowland people) to collectively manage

and use state-owned land for their livelihood. This implies that the state still retains its

claim to ownership of these lands. The present law requires a community to

periodically renew their land title deeds with the respective government agencies that

formally own the land. To the communities, it is like renting their own land (Carino &

Maranan, 2016).

25
7. Vietnam

In Vietnam, Article 1 of the Law on Land of 1993 establishes that “indigenous land is

the property of the entire people and is subject to exclusive administration by the

state”. However, indigenous ownership was not recognized by any individuals,

including Indigenous Peoples (Xanthaki, 2003). Nonetheless, the leasehold system,

which has been operating since 1986 in Thailand, allows the IPs to use but not own

the land (UN CERD, 2001). It means that IPs, as well as non-IPs, have no real land

ownership rights to their lands. The IPs were also being constrained to perform

agricultural activities over their lands (UN ICCPR, 2002). International Law offered

limited assistance in claims for ownership of IPs such as the provision of Article 17 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which establishes the “right of

all people to own property, alone and collectively, and the right not to be arbitrarily

deprived of one’s property” (UN UDHR, 1948).

C. Gaps in the Implementation of IPRA

The claims on ancestral domain also involve the recognition of the State. As a

response to this, the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act was enacted in 1997. The law

provides a mechanism for the protection of their lands and other rights but the

government laws, commitments, and strategic plans seem to contradict each other

(Rutten, 2015). For example, once the certificates are awarded, the community

management fails to sustain these areas because of conflicting resource control. This

scenario deviates away from the assumption of the IPRA that there exists extensive

resource management (Gatmaytan, 2015).

26
The IPRA is hailed as an outstanding piece of legislation which centralizes on the

protection of the right of IPs. This law provides schemes on how IPs can have

authority over their ancestral lands; however, it has also negative dimensions (Rutten,

2015). The domaining authority and personal interests of the NCIP personnel reflect

weak political support from both local and national government (Padilla, 2008). The

personnel were also characterized as ethnocentric and disinterested. They also possess

“arrogance” when dealing with IPs (Padilla, 2008). The law also prescribes a tedious

process which leads to the delay in awarding certificates. Lastly, the awarding of

certificates serves as an opportunity for private investors to gain access to these lands

especially when the community is weak in terms of organizing themselves

(Gatmaytan, 2015). This is a contradiction to the goals of the law—to protect their

ancestral domains and to provide tenurial security.

State recognition is directly linked to the legal framework provided in a sense that it

reflects the will of the state to protect their rights. However, there are inadequacies

that previous analyses fail to delve into when shifting to the legal dimension.

Adherence to too much bureaucratic process is a rule to ensure that everyone

undergoes the prescribed procedure, but it is also an avenue to contradict the value of

accessibility of these Indigenous Peoples who are not totally aware of the process.

A fundamental contradiction in the law lies in the exercise of “the power of eminent

domain”, which may be invoked and exercised for “the entry, acquisition and use of

private lands”. This totally nullifies the protection of ancestral domains provided for

in the IPRA as “prospectors, claimants of mineral lands shall not be prevented from

entry into private lands, surface owners, and occupants when prospecting or exploring

27
therein” (Sec 1, Presidential Decree 55). These propositions not only negate the

intent of the IPRA, but also demonstrate how the government can invoke the Regalian

doctrine to protect private interests in the exploitation of mineral resources.

D. Factors that Affect the CADT Delineation and Recognition Process

1. Presence of Private Entities

The loss of ancestral land industries because of displacement by development projects

and extractive industries became a major factor that causes food insecurity and

poverty among Indigenous Peoples (Carino, 2012). In an interview with Jonathan

Adaci, former director of the Ancestral Domain Office, the issuance of Certificate of

Ancestral Domain Titles takes years to complete and only 180 titles have been handed

out nationwide, with some five million other claims still being processed (PREDA

Foundation Inc., 2015). Ms. Cynthia Zayas, professor of Anthropology in the

University of the Philippines, claims that private developers are eating up ancestral

domain land which, in turns, Indigenous Peoples themselves become informal settlers

in their own land (PREDA Foundation Inc., 2015).

The communities of Indigenous Peoples are commonly found in the forests,

mountains, lowlands, and coastal areas of the country, and are in varied levels of

socioeconomic development (Carino, 2012). Some Indigenous Peoples, like the

Dumagats of Quezon and Aetas of Zambales, have retained their nomadic way of

life—hunting and gathering in the forest, and engaging in swidden agriculture at the

marginal to minimum level (Carino, 2012) but recent decades shown increasing

28
pressure from external sources, including mining, logging, land grabbing and large-

scale government projects (PREDA Foundation Inc., 2015). The latest casualties of

these external pressures are some 3,000 Dumagats—the Aeta bands of the northern

Sierra Madre—in Aurora province who are being evicted from their ancestral land by

the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority which expands up to

12,427 hectares covering most of the municipality of Casiguran (Salita, 2011).

Several Aeta communities in Zambales were also removed by the government and the

tribesmen were transferred in various resettlement sites to give way for the mining

projects (Hotel Clark Philippines, n.d.).

Despite massive land-grabbing of private industries, Hotel Clark Philippines Journal,

Navales (2015), Orejas (2011) have successfully recorded plights of the Indigenous

Peoples in fighting for their ancestral domains. Aeta communities in Zambales led

protestations against massive land-grabbing of their tribe’s ancestral domain through

amplifying the abuse of Benigno Aquino III’s administration regarding the

militarization initiatives which harassed and violated the rights of the Aetas (Hotel

Clark Philippines, n.d.).

“Kaming mga katutubong Ayta sa Gitnang Luson ay inaapi at pinagsasamantalahan.

Ang aming mga lupang katutubo ay pawang inaagaw at kami ay pinapalayas. Sa
maraming lugar sa rehiyon, kami ay pinapalayas upang bigyan daan ang
mapanirang pagmimina, konstruksyon ng mga dam at proyektong eko-turismo,”
Edwin Danan, Spokesperson of the Central Luzon Ayta Association.

In the case of tribes from Barangay Camias, Porac, Pampanga, Aetas continue their

fight for ancestral domain rights. The community opposed the first public consultation

that a mining company held for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of its

copper, gold, and silver extraction project within the tribe’s ancestral domain (Orejas,

29
2011). Edgardo David, lead geologist of the EIA team, insisted the need to conduct

further consultations to address the anticipated negative impacts of Aetas brought by

the project covering 1,160 hectares of their village (Orejas, 2011).

Legal battles were also sought by filing criminal and administrative charges against

private companies. Different Aeta tribal communities in Mabalacat City in Pampanga

and Bamban town in Tarlac have bared plans to file criminal and administrative

charges against Clark Development Corporation (CDC) for allegedly disregarding the

Ancestral Domain Law. Arthur Tugade, representing CDC, is ignoring the law by

claiming ancestral lands as part of the freeport area (Navales, 2015).

Joint Management Agreements today serve as templates to resolve conflicts in

overlapping land titles between private firms and Indigenous Peoples. It is viewed as a

contract that upholds the rights of the Aetas in the pursuit of uplifting their economic,

cultural, and social conditions based on the programs being implemented by the

government (Escolango, 2016). Although, a prerequisite of CADT, accompanied by

ancestral domain sustainable development protection plan (ADSDPP), is needed

before entering the agreement, as stated by Pacito Ligorio - a representative of NCIP

Bataan during a visit to Aeta community in Barangay Pastolan, Subic, Zambales

(Alejo, 2015).

2. Enforcement of the CADT Delineation and Titling Process

The concept of recognition and enforcement of land rights is essentially related. A

right has to be defined and recognized for it to be enforced. No enforcement is

30
possible without the previous recognition of this right. On the other hand, a right has

no practical effects without measures protecting this right and forcing others to

respect it as there’s no effective recognition without enforcement (Beaupre, 2015).

Aforementioned, the NCIP in pursuant of RA 8371, is the primary agency mandated

to issue certificate of ancestral domain titles to Indigenous People/Indigenous Cultural

Communities. The Ancestral Domain Office, under the commission, is responsible for

the identification, delineation, and recognition of ancestral domains through

coordinating and ensuring the enforcement of policies and laws protecting the rights

of IPs/ICCs to their ancestral domains, including the application of customary laws

governing property rights and relations in determining ownership procedures and

standards.

The delineation process, cited in the law, includes “self-delineation" as its guiding

principle in the identification of ancestral domain claims outlined under Sections 51 to

53. The IPRA provides jurisdiction of all ancestral domain claims to the NCIP

including those previously awarded by the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR), and all future claims that will be filed (Carling et. al, 2016). In

practice, Indigenous Peoples cannot automatically assume full entitlement of their

inherent rights recognized in the IPRA without adhering to the formally defined and

controlled process established by the NCIP for the issuance of these CADTs / CALTs.

Nevertheless, the IPRA together with its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR),

specifies the basis for filing new claims, as well as all the existing ancestral domain

claims previously recognized through the issuance of Certificate of Ancestral Domain

Claims (CADCs) which are now required to pass through a process of affirmation for

31
titling. In this regard, the NCIP adopts and promulgates the Revised Omnibus Rules

on Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Domains and Lands of 2012 (also

known as NCIP Administrative Order No. 4 Series of 2012) which identifies the

process of identification and delineation of ancestral domains. Moreover, the IPRA

requires CADT applicants to submit testimonies of the elders in the community, as

well as submission of ‘any one of’ the ten enumerated ethnographic proofs in Section

52 (d). However, in the Resolution 119, Series of 2004 release by the NCIP, all 10 of

the IPRA’s optional ethnographic proofs actually became mandatory (ICERD, 2009).

The delineation process produces the requisite lists, maps, census data, and

agreements for pinning Indigenous Peoples in place and tangling them more as state

clients (Li, 2002). It facilitates the exercise of state power through the legal

homogenization or standardization of the notion of, and rights to, ancestral lands

(Gatmaytan 2005). Thus, the IPRA has an essential ambiguity or paradox: it can be

read as an instrument for asserting indigenous self-determination or for the extension

of state control and sovereignty over natural and human resources (Bennagen 2007).

While some IPs/ICCs have tried with varying degrees of success to use IPRA as an

instrument to legalize claims to their ancestral lands and domain, the IPRA has been

criticized for its inherent flaws and emergent implementation problems (Montillo-

Burton & Echavez, 2011; Padilla, 2008).

3. Existence of Political Interference

Since the beginning, the struggles of Aetas in claiming their ancestral lands had been

noticeable. Relocation, a shift to a new place of habitation, has been an ordinary pace

32
of survival for Indigenous Peoples (Acaba, 2008). Tracing back their history, living in

Mt. Pinatubo had been the central of their economic livelihood, spirituality, and belief

system. However due to its eruption, the Aetas were forcibly evacuated to relocation

centers. Eventually, they left without choice and currently stayed in the lowlands

(Austria, 2008).

These natural phenomena are not the only causes of relocations but can also be

attributed with political interventions. For instance during the 1970s if the Chico Dam

Project in the Cordillera Region funded through the World Bank was continued, the

program could potentially affect 10,000 Indigenous Peoples living within the area

(Acaba, 2008). We can see how certain interventions become an underlying factor of

acquiring their own homelands. As part of a vulnerable community, IPs have been

targets of commercialization and intimidation by dominant industries (Austria, 2008).

Take for example the case of Aeta tribal people from Hacienda Dolores in Porac,

Pampanga. According to the appeal forwarded by the Asian Human Rights

Commission (AHRC), the farmers who are Indigenous Peoples experienced

harassment from the officials and securities from the two big corporations namely

LLL Holdings Incorporated (LLHI) and FL Properties (FLLH). Last 2005, the

Department of Agrarian Reform issued an order exempting the 700-hectare land to be

distributed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The

controversy sparked when DAR exempted LLHI and FLLH from the CARP which

are claiming more than 750 hectares of the said land. The farmers were denied access

to cultivate their land and had been harshly evacuated from their places. Some of their

33
homes, crops, and livelihood stocks were even destroyed by the giant corporations

(Campaign For Human Rights Philippines, 2013).

These landless farmers had been cultivating their land since time immemorial as they

have inherited them from their ancestors. However, the order from DAR can also be

deemed as violation of the certification from the NCIP because the land is contested

to be within the ancestral land of the victims. It was also revealed that these Aeta

farmers were entitled the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title RO3POR-0709 123,

which covers 18 hectares of land located in Zambales, Tarlac, and Pampanga.

However, the FLLH and LLHI insisted that the 200 hectares claimed by the Aetas

were already acquired and titled to them (Campaign For Human Rights Philippines,

2013).

It is ironic that regardless the defined power of NCIP to protect the welfare of

Indigenous Peoples, communities like the farmers from Porac, Pampanga are the

living proofs that they are still prone to abuse. Aside from the lack of government

mediation and poor execution of the law, these kinds of political interventions became

crucial factors for acquiring their ancestral domains. Furthermore, some of indigenous

communities have already exhausted their efforts to prevent these kinds of abuse

concerning their ancestral lands. Aeta communities consisting of 11 organizations

from Tarlac formed a federation named LABAYKU with the main objective of

safeguarding their rights over their domains. The community organization was a

notable aspect of asserting their rights because they believe that collective voices are

the only way to fight exploitation, subordination, and marginalization (Austria, 2008).

34
Through the organization, the Aetas became skeptical of different developmental

projects. There were numerous success and failures in protecting their land from

reforestation projects which are part of the government programs. Last 2003, the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources conducted an on-ground survey as

part of the planned reforestation project covering their ancestral land. Without prior

notice and explanations why the survey was conducted, the community was alarmed

and decided to express indignation to the local government. As the local provincial

legislature recognized their collective prowess, a dialogue was seen to be a significant

component of success for the reforestation programs. Soon, the leaders together with

the villagers underwent partnership and discussions with the stakeholders of the

project. The reforestation had been a success and the government recognized the

importance of community participation (Austria, 2008).

These two seemingly contradicting cases, both experienced hostile external

interventions but it somehow ended with different outcomes. The researchers would

further look and study the factors on how these political circumstances hinder the

effectiveness of the CADT Delineation and Recognition Process. Moreover, why

despite the existence of NCIP, Indigenous Peoples still experience land grabbing even

it was already covered by the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT).

4. Aeta Community Capacity

In relation with the duty of the government to supplement the IPs with a more legal

framework of their rights, it is still not enough that a law exists; the stakeholders of a

law must also be aware of the corresponding rights that they have. Back then, Aetas

35
held their own notion of territoriality and depended on the three basic concepts of

habit, custom, and law as they have no equivalent term of acquisition (David, 2011).

As time passed by, modernization had led great impacts to the Aetas communities,

even their political system. Aetas choose their own “captain” or also known as “tribal

chieftain” who is at the level of the village. The chieftain will be chosen in terms of

their political influence especially because he/she will be in charge to deal with

political matters in the village (Gaillard, 2015). In fact, in an Aeta community in

Hermosa, Bataan, their chieftain once stated that CADT is “a shield against land

grabbers.”

The Aeta’s own administrative system is not the only institution that helps them in

their struggles and makes them well-informed about the legal system. They also have

their own organizations like the Aniban ng Nagkakaisang Mamamayan ng Hacienda

Dolores, or ANIBAN, through the help of Kilusan Para sa Repormang Agraryo at

Katarungang Panlipunan (KATARUNGAN), a nationwide organization of peasants

(De Guzman, 2015). Moreover, the enactment of IPRA does not only identifY a

specific right of IPs but it also elaborates and dwells on different kinds of rights which

significantly increases the awareness of the public including the IPs themselves about

their rights (Montillo-Burton & Echavez, 2011). Specifically on their land rights,

Aetas expect IPRA to substantially improve their legal status as potential or actual

landowners, numerous Aetas families who are interested in holding land increased

and their appreciation of land ownership changed considerably given that private

property now is highly valued (Casimir, 2009).

36
Former commissioner of the NCIP, Pablo Santos, acknowledged that Aetas still have

the rights to question the legitimacy of their land ownership. In fact, some of the

Aetas were not passive when the IPRA was enacted, there are government programs

and policies that are not in accordance with the interests of the Indigenous

communities (Fajardo, 2007). While some remain passive as well because they do not

like violence, as stated by Cecil Morella (2015), “They never fight back.... The Aeta

will just run to the mountains…”

Nonetheless, IPs understanding of the legal, institutional and cultural constraints, and

awareness of their rights is not sufficient to say that they are not deprived of access.

They must (i) be able to articulate their grievances, by building persuasive and

functional arguments, (ii) exert influence, by lobbying and establishing alliances, and

(iii) become self-reliant and capable of sound economic management.

E. Summary of Related Literature

From international declarations, treaties and covenants down to pieces of local

legislation, there is sufficient evidence to state that there is an existing manifestation

of interest in protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples, not only from the country

but the international community as well. Chapter III of IPRA is specifically devoted

to Ancestral Domain/Indigenous Land Rights. One of the most important elements of

this piece of legislation is how the state should always aim for the protection of these

rights through the establishment of National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. This

institution is mandated to uphold the rights prescribed in IPRA and ensure the proper

and rightful CADT Delineation and Recognition Process among IPs. In essence, there

37
is an existing legal framework to serve as a guide for the IPs to claim their rights and

promote their welfare thus, it is expected that these provisions will be operationalized

with utmost effectiveness to serve its purpose. However, despite these legal basis for

the processing of CADTs, there are gaps in the crafting and implementation of these

legislations which result to ineffective enforcement.

Not only the Philippines has been continuously facing indigenous land rights

problems, but also its neighboring countries in Southeast Asia. The noticeable

concern presents in all Southeast Asian States is that Indigenous and Tribal Peoples

do not have the right to own their ancestral lands even though they have traditionally

occupied it since time immemorial. Likewise, indigenous land ownership has not been

protected in most parts of the region because of the limited rights of possession to

customary land these IPs have. Moreover, the participation of IPs and access to legal

services to reclaim their lands are also limited. These deprivation of land rights to IPs

have broken up minority and Indigenous Peoples and have forcibly relocated them to

new settlement which led to the further impoverishment, violence to the indigenous

communities, and forced assimilation of IPs. However, in view of the recent

development, indigenous communities’ consultation and information dissemination

have been made with the help of international laws and organizations to explain the

basis of IP’s traditional practices in order to ensure the protection of their indigenous

land ownership.

Private entities continue to take part as one of the factors that inhibit Indigenous

Peoples from enjoying their rights to ancestral domains. From low-key resettlements

to massive land grabbings, the IPs incessantly struggle through various forms of

38
collective action to assume their full claim on their right to ancestral domains.

Records show that indigenous groups led protests against massive land grabbings of

corporations. Mining corporations are also being slammed because of their lack of

consultations. Legal battles against firms were also sought by indigenous groups to

freely enjoy their rights on ancestral lands. These, despite of the presence of the

IPRA, are some of the externalities of overlapping land titles of non-IPs and private

entities, and ancestral domains which affect the CADT Delineation and Recognition

Process.

With the mere existence of tensions between Indigenous Peoples and other

corporations, it is evident of the susceptibility of these communities from abuse of

power. The CADT, which should supposedly serve as protective tool against land

grabbing, became useless when dominant groups imposed additional documents based

from other legal decrees. The defined power of NCIP anchored in the IPRA is

conspicuous, but the implementation of the ancestral domain titles still lacks strong

enforcement. As measurement for effectiveness, the CADT Delineation and

Recognition Process does not end after the issuance of CADT, but after the

government can already ensure that the piece of certification can legitimately

safeguard these indigenous peoples from hostile political interventions.

In addition, the enforcement of the CADT process primarily lies on the NCIP

particularly under its Ancestral Domain Office, as stated in the IPRA. In this regard,

Indigenous Peoples cannot assume full claim of their inherent rights acknowledged in

the IPRA without following to the formally defined and controlled process established

by the NCIP for the issuance of CADTs. The IPRA, with its Implementing Rules and

39
Regulations (IRR), specifies the basis for filing new claims and the process of

delineating ancestral domains. The process of affirmation for titling is further

strengthened with the Revised Omnibus Rules on Delineation and Recognition of

Ancestral Domains and Lands of 2012 (or NCIP Administrative Order No. 4 Series of

2012) adopted and promulgated by the NCIP which enumerated the eight general

procedures for the process of identification and delineation of ancestral domains.

This, however, enables the exercise of state power through the legal homogenization

or standardization of the notion of, and rights to ancestral domains in which there is

no effective recognition of such right without proper enforcement.

Moreover, the Aetas’ awareness of their rights, specifically on ancestral land, allows

them to be more assertive of achieving social equity. Aetas have their own notion of

territoriality which takes us to an assumption that they have no legal way of land

acquisition. However, even if they have their own formal political system and where

they had someone to deal with political matters, there are still other institutions that

can help them raise awareness and assert their rights. It was asserted that IPRA is an

effective tool that does not only identify specific rights of IPs, but also elaborates and

dwells on different kinds of rights. In fact, through the IPRA, a number of Aeta

families who got interested in holding land increased and their appreciation of land

ownership considerably grew. Nonetheless, even if it was favorable, it was known

that they were not passive on the legal framework because government programs and

policies are not in accordance with the interests of the indigenous communities.

40
F. Gaps in Knowledge

After the critical evaluation of the existing knowledge regarding the process of the

CADT Delineation and Recognition Process, the researchers noticed that there is still

limited extensive study assessing the joint role of the NCIP, DENR, DAR, and LRA

— their mandates in CADT Delineation and Recognition Process. Moreover, the

researchers acknowledged the problems and challenges inherent in the context of the

enforcement of ancestral domain provision in the Philippines.

In relation to the proper implementation of the law, the researchers find the lack of

community participation which was evident in the existing tensions previously

mentioned. With that, the researchers looked into the CADT Delineation and

Recognition Process through the viewpoints of the Aeta Communities from Limay,

Bataan and Botolan, Zambales. Other than understanding the perspectives of

concerned government agencies, it was significant to find out if they actually

attempted to apply, how they personally perceive the amount of requirements —

financial costs and time constraints of the application, and if the necessary documents

needed are hard to provide.

G. Contribution to Public Administration and Governance

In line with the objectives, the main contribution of this research paper to public

administration and governance was to assess the role and performance of the

concerned agencies in enforcing CADT Delineation and Recognition Process, and to

determine factors affecting this process. In doing so, this research contributed to the

41
practice of public administration and governance by aiding the agencies in

determining how they can effectively and systematically administer its mandates and

overall process, as well as, safeguarding the inherent ancestral domain rights of

Indigenous Peoples.

Since this paper sought to assess how the agencies’ systems of procedures comply

with its mandate regarding the CADT Delineation and Recognition Process, this also

became a foundation in evaluating the aptness of the agencies in performing its

functions and roles stipulated in IPRA. Public Administration is both a field of study

and practice, this research aimed to contribute in those areas by broadening existing

knowledge on the joint role of the NCIP, DENR, DAR, and LRA — their mandates in

CADT Delineation and Recognition Process and an assessment of how the four

agencies perform their respective core responsibilities.

42
 Chapter III

Theoretical Framework

This chapter confers the theoretical framework that the researchers used in the study.

Figure 2: Theoretical Framework of the Study

The main framework for this research was based on the work of Ludwig Von

Bertalanffy - General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications

(1968). The General System Theory is an interdisciplinary study that views a system

as an entity with interrelated and interdependent parts. These interdependencies can

easily become so complex that a minor event in one subsystem may amplify into

serious unintended consequences elsewhere in the system. According to the theory,

43
the system receives inputs, transforms them and exports the outputs to the

environment as shown in the basic input-output model.

It is also significant to understand its two classifications—the closed and open system.

Basically, the closed system cannot be affected by the external environment while in

the open system, the environment can intertwine with the overall process. For the

purposes of this study, the researchers used an open system because of the external

factors considered including private entities, political interference, enforcement of

legal instruments, and the capacity of Aetas and their leaders that affect the CADT

Delineation and Recognition Process.

The NCIP, being the main stakeholder, provides the sheer amount of inputs in terms

of ancestral domain titling and issuance process. The agency has been legally

mandated to protect the ancestral domain rights of Indigenous Peoples through the

provisions and guidelines specifically stated in the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of

1997 and other government decrees.

The systems theory identifies process as one of its main elements on how an

organization operates in a context-based scenario. This phase involves the

transformation of input into output and adding value to the elements. Since the

systems theory discussed in this study is characterized as “open”, external factors can

directly or indirectly affect the process of conversion of input to result. Considerably,

certain factors like private entities, enforcement, political intervention, and awareness

of Aetas affect the CADT delineation and recognition process. Private entities

initiates development projects in land areas that sometimes produces external

44
pressures; enforcement, on the other hand, is further legitimized thru the recognition

of rights in the policies and law carried over by NCIP, specifically the Ancestral

Domain Office; political intervention amounts to the appeals of different government

agencies and political entities.

Moreover, one important aspect to consider in political entities is the interaction

between various agencies, which are expected to work hand-in-hand towards

recognition of CADT. This includes DENR which is responsible in ensuring that no

government-owned reserves and other natural resources are overlapping with the

mapping of CADT application; LRA which is endowed with the authority to assess if

there are already private titles which may be in conflict with the application of CADT,

and DAR which is mandated to segregate the portions of public domain devoted to

agricultural lands. These entities are expected to influence the issuance of CADT

especially because there exists a Joint NCIP-DAR-DENR-LRA Administrative Order

No. 01 to codify their respective roles in the process. Furthermore, the capacity of

Aetas or their representatives to forward their application and resist all forms of

interference is also a vital factor because they are also key players in the issuance of

CADT.

The end goal of the study was to characterize and concretize the effective process of

the CADT application and issuance. This was accomplished through a critical

comparison of the two cases namely, Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales which the

researchers categorized as elements of the totality of the theoretical framework.

45
Considering all the factors mentioned, the surfacing of potential differences was a

great relevance as feedback to the two cases being studied. Both Limay and Botolan

benefited by further improving their current application and issuance process and

maintaining their respective good practices.

46
 Chapter IV

Methodology

This chapter presents in detail the research design and the methodology conducted by

the researchers in completing the study. It covers the in-depth discussions of the data-

gathering instruments, background of study population, and qualitative techniques

utilized for data analysis.

A. Research Design

Creswell (2009) defined research design as plan and the research operations that links

the decision from general assumptions to comprehensive method of data collection

and analysis. Thus, a research design is relevant to ensure that the evidences obtained

enable the researchers to answer the initial question as unambiguously as possible.

This research used a qualitative research to provide a comprehensive assessment of

the Certificate of the Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) delineation and recognition

process.

Qualitative research is a technique used to scrutinize and understand the theories

human refer to social problems (Creswell, 2009). It is comprised of detailed analysis

of documents provided by the institution through comparison and reasoning of

changes in a specified duration of study. The qualitative research included a thorough

assessment of secondary documents from the NCIP such as process maps. This was

used to identify significant changes in the process used by the NCIP and determine

the bottlenecks in the whole process and its causes. Recognition books containing all

47
the transactions of IPs with the NCIP were also analyzed in order for the researchers

to have a second-hand perspective of the IP’s application experience.

Lastly, the researchers utilized two interconnected data gathering method such as key

informant interviews, and group discussions to analyze and examine the factors that

affected the CADT delineation and recognition process.

B. Data-Gathering Instruments and Administration

1. Documents Analysis

The pre-data gathering was done the second half of January and served as a

supplement data for the interview. The target pre-data included the acquisition of the

process map of the NCIP ancestral domain titling and the issued land titles in Region

III through the help of the NCIP Ancestral Domain Titling Office.

On the other hand, the post-data gathering was scheduled on the second half of

February in conjunction with the group discussion. The data gathering included the

acquisition of complete archives of the Ancestral Domain Office in relation to the

amendments of CADT delineation and recognition process. The data included the

CADT database, recognition books, process maps, and the data of documents with

conflict and the proportion of resolved land titles. These were gathered at the NCIP

Central Office in EDSA, corner P. Tuazon Avenue, Quezon City.

48
The researchers also gathered data in the NCIP Regional Office III located at 3rd flr.

Building, Consunji Street, City of San Fernando Pampanga. Important documents like

the recognition books that contained the detailed procedure of each applicant were

acquired through which the researchers identified their subject.

2. Interviews

The interview is a primary technique in collecting expert opinions to pursue in-depth

information around the topic (McNamara, 1999). For the purpose of the study, a

personal interview with the NCIP officials was conducted to gather opinions on the

process of ancestral domain titling. The key informant interviewees include the NCIP

Ancestral Domain Office Chief Officer, Management Officer, and Engineer; NCIP

Regional Office III Chief Administrative Officer, Engineer, and Planning Officer; and

an officer from each of the agencies included in the JAO namely DENR, DAR, and

LRA. The interviews were characterized by a “probe for detailed answers approach”

from which the interviewers were guided by a structure in the interview thus

allocating space to probe in questions for detailed examination of the discussion.

a. Profile of the Interviewees

The key informant interviews came from the National Commission on Indigenous

Peoples’ office. These include the NCIP Ancestral Domain Office Chief Officer,

Management Officer, and Engineer; NCIP Regional Office III Chief Administrative

49
Officer, Engineer, and Planning Officer; and an officer from each of the agencies

included in the JAO.

The first key interview were the Chief Officer, the Management Officer, and the

Engineer of the Ancestral Domain Office of the Main Office located at the 2nd Flr. N.

dela Merced Building, corner West & Quezon Avenues, Quezon City. The interview

was for the purpose of obtaining their expert knowledge in the changes of the

delineation and recognition process of CADT throughout the years. The next

interview was covered at the NCIP Regional Office III located at 3rd flr. Building,

Consunji Street, City of San Fernando Pampanga where three separate interviews

were conducted. First, the Chief Administrative Officer of the Regional Office III was

interviewed in order to give a brief clarification about the Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-

NCIP Administrative Order (JAO). Also from the Regional Office, an Engineer was

interviewed to give the researchers the knowledge on the technical process CADT

delineation and titling, this includes a series of on-site work like the mission planning,

reconnaissance, establishment of project control, perimeter survey, and survey returns

preparation. Information about the process of the data gathering was attested by the

Planning Officer, who was also a part of the Regional Review Body (RRB). Lastly,

officers from DENR, DAR, and LRA were interviewed to give clarifications in the

state of the process in accordance with their respective roles in the CADT registration.

50
b. Schedule of Administration

The schedule of the interview administration covered the first half of March as shown

in Appendix C. The interviews followed a “probe for detailed answers approach”

from which the interviewers were guided by a structure in the interview thus

maintaining space to probe in questions for detailed examination of the discussion.

The interview spanned for four weeks covering the entire month of March. The first

week was allotted for the preparation and sending of documents for interview while

the remaining three weeks were for the interview proper. The first week was reserved

for the Ancestral Domain Office while the following weeks were for the regional

offices.

Since the researchers were coming from the academe, the Mondays, Saturdays, and

Sundays of every week were apportioned for the conduct of data gathering. The

interviews for the NCIP officials were conducted at the NCIP Main Office located at

the 2nd Flr. N. dela Merced Building, corner West & Quezon Avenues, Quezon City,

and NCIP Regional Office III located at the 3rd floor of KL Building, Consunji Street,

City of San Fernando, Pampanga.

51
c. Contents of the Interview Guide/Schedule

The contents of the interview were primarily questions centering on the bottlenecks of

the ancestral domain titling process particularly the delineation and recognition

processes of ancestral domain titles.

The first interview for the Ancestral Domain Office focused on the ancestral domain

titling process. It briefly inquired for the scope of ancestral domain areas in Region III

and its proportion to the issued ancestral domain titles. The interview probed on the

significant changes of ancestral domain titling over the years and its probable

bottlenecks. Next, the second interview in the Regional Office III was subdivided into

Chief Administrative Officer, Engineer and a Planning Officer, to gain knowledge on

the JAO, technical process and on-site works, and data-gathering process respectively.

3. Key Informant Interview and Group Discussion

The key informant interviews and group discussion were a follow-up interview

conducted in the last week of March. Their main purpose was to clarify previously

collected data from the interviews. It included members of the Aeta communities

from both municipalities of Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales. The group

discussions also followed a “probe for detailed answers approach”.

52
a. Schedule of Administration

The schedule of the focus group discussion administration covered the last week of

March as shown in Appendix C. The interviews followed a “probe for detailed

answers approach” from which the interviewers were guided by a structure in the

discussion; thus, maintaining space to probe in questions for detailed examination of

the results.

b. Contents of the Key Informant Interview and Group Discussion

The contents of the discussion and interview were primarily focused on gathering data

to the Aeta communities about the processes done in the field such as the fulfillment

of requirements needed in the recognition book. They were also asked about their

experiences in the process including their insights about the procedures, officials, and

the bottlenecks they have personally experienced.

53
 Table 1: Schedule of Research Strategy

DATE OF
DATA NAME OF SOURCE/S POSITION INTERVIEW/
SOURCE/S VISIT

NCIP Main Engr. Jeanette Manuel Chief Officer, ADO February 5, 2018
Office- ADO

Mr. Xyril Shane Development February 5, 2018

Dumangeng Management
Officer I

Engr. Shelley Calara Engineer III February 5, 2018

NCIP Regional Mr. Randie Bacani Chief March 19, 2018

Office III Administrative
Officer
Administrative and
Financial Service
Division

Engr. Gibbs Bestoton Engineer III March 13, 2018

Technical
Management
Service Division

Mr. Kevin Constantine Planning Officer III March 19, 2018

Fonseca Technical
Management
Service Division

DENR Mr. Robert Tan Chief Surveys and March 19, 2018
Region III Control Section,
Surveys and
Mapping Division

LRA Mr. Butch Ragodon Records Officer March 19, 2018

Region III

DAR Mr. Roger Lagman ARPO II, Legal March 19, 2018
Region III Division

Aeta Apo Carling Dumulog Aeta Leader of March 26, 2018

Communities (Key Informant) Botolan, Zambales

Board Member Danilo Aeta Leaders and March 26, 2018

Salonga elders of Limay, and April 1, 2018

54
 Chieftain Bagsik-Rosales Bataan
Mr. Mario Bagsik
Ms. Carmelita Diego
(Group Discussion)

c. Consents of Aeta Communities

Before proceeding to the respective communities and conducting the data-gathering

methods mentioned, the researchers first filed an application for the certificate of

Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) to

the NCIP Regional Office III.

The Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws

(CLs) Research and Documentation is pursuant to the NCIP Administrative Order No.

1 Series of 2012. Before conducting any research and documentation, obtaining an

IKSP and CL certificate is very important in order to a. promote, protect and

recognize the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples

(ICCs/IPs) to cultural integrity and to prescribe protective mechanisms at the national

and international government levels, and within the context of relevant customary

laws; b. Ensure and guarantee the due exercise by the concerned ICCs/IPs of their

right to allow or reject, through free and prior informed consent (FPIC), research and

documentation of their IKSPs and customary laws and their derivatives; and c.

Regulate the use of IKSPs and customary laws, and ensure that the ICCs/IPs benefit

from the use of research output/outcome. The Indigenous Knowledge Systems and

Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws (CLs) Research and Documentation

Guidelines of 2012). With the assistance of Mr. Alih Ulang, DMO II of the Regional

55
Office III, the application filed resulted to an exemption for the IKSP, allowing the

researchers to conduct the data-gathering methods in the Aeta communities.

C. Data Processing and Analysis

Qualitative Techniques

Figure 3: Data Triangulation

The researchers used qualitative analysis in order to assess the factors and bottlenecks

that affect the issuance of CADT, the differences between the processes followed by

areas. Specifically, document analysis, interview, and focus group discussion were

utilized to gather the needed data. According to Guba and Lincoln, document analysis

is the gathering of information through documents that are written or recorded. These

56
documents can be divided into two major categories: public records, and personal

documents (as cited in National Science Foundation, n.d.). As what was defined by

McNamara, interview is a method that pursue in-depth information as it allows the

researcher and respondents to have an investigative responses through follow-up (as

cited in Valenzuela & Shirvastrava, n.d.). Lastly, focus group research is “a way of

collecting qualitative data, which—essentially— involves engaging a small number of

people in an informal group discussion (or discussions), ‘focused’ around a particular

topic or set of issues” (Wilkinson, 2004). Moreover Lazarsfeld & Merton mentioned

that focus group discussions do (a) capturing people’s responses in real space and

time in the context of face-to-face interactions and (b) strategically ‘focusing’

interview prompts based on themes that are generated in these face-to-face

interactions and that are considered particularly important to the researchers. (as cited

in Onwuegbuzie, A. et al., 2009).

The data obtained through document analysis, interviews, and group discussions were

analyzed through the triangulation method. Triangulation involves the careful

reviewing of data collected through different methods in order to achieve a more

accurate and valid estimate of qualitative results for a particular construct. In this

research, data were collected through three different methods (document analysis,

interview, and focus group discussion) allowing each to measure the same construct

while having a different error type inherent in that method (Olliver-Hoyo & Allen,

2006).

57
This is the reason why Mark and Shotland stated that the deficiencies in these

methods would be seen as giving the true estimate of a single result. Thus,

triangulation yields a more accurate and valid estimate of a result given that each

method of measurement actually converges on the same answer (as cited in Olliver-

Hoyo & Allen, 2006).

58
 Chapter V

Subjects of Analysis

This chapter provides a summary and overview of the subjects of analysis of this

research. It is divided into the selection of cases, and profiles of; (1) the local

government units, (2) beneficiaries of the research, and (3) the government agencies

studied.

A. Introduction

The reasons why the researchers selected the particular indigenous communities to be

studied were specified in the selection of cases. In the local government unit part, the

researchers described the geographical, socio-economic, and political features of

Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales. The primary beneficiaries of this research

were the Aeta communities, in which they were further characterized.

Additionally, the mandates and functions related to ancestral domain of the four

concerned agencies: National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP), Department

of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Agrarian Reform

(DAR), and Land Registration Authority (LRA) are outlined and enumerated,

respectively. The Ancestral Domain Office under the central office of the NCIP

focused on the ancestral domain process while the regional offices of the four

agencies were more grounded with the concerns and problems of the IPs regarding the

process in the region.

59
B. Selection of Cases

Through the recognition books containing documents and records of the detailed

application process of the IPs, the researchers identified two cases that applied within

the same year; one that has not been awarded yet, and the other which was granted

with the land title Hence, the cases of Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales were

chosen.

The Aetas of Limay, Bataan applied on January 6, 2004 and it was approved by the

NCIP on December 9, 2015. However; up to this time, it has not yet been awarded

and is still undergoing the process of registration of the Land Registration Authority

(LRA). On the other hand, the Aetas of Botolan, Zambales applied on May 9, 2005

and CADT was awarded on October 3, 2009.

C. Profile of the Local Government Unit

The study was conducted in two IP communities from two areas in Bataan and

Zambales: Sitio Kinaragan, Barangay Duale, and Sitio Aryada, Barangay Kitang 2

(portion) in the municipality of Limay Bataan, and Barangay Belbel, Barangay

Burgos, Barangay Moraza, and Barangay Villar in the municipality of Botolan,

Zambales. These locations were strategically chosen to compare the problems

encountered by the Aeta communities in the area with their ancestral domain.

60
1. Municipality of Limay, Bataan

Limay, officially the Municipality of Limay, is classified as a first class municipality

in the province of Bataan, Philippines. The municipality has a land area of 103.60

square kilometres (40.00 sq mi) constituting 7.55% of the 1,372.98 square-kilometer

(530.11 sq mi) total area of Bataan. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority

(2015), it has a population of 68,071 people. Based on the existing land use, about

65.75% of the total area is forestland, 25.94% is agriculture, 5.95% is industrial use,

2.21% build-up area, and 0.15% for aquaculture.

Figure 4: Map of Limay, Bataan

Source: Map of Bataan (Wikipedia)

In particular, the total area of the ancestral domain applied for in Sitio Kinaragan,

Barangay Duale, and Sitio Aryada, Barangay Kitang 2 (portion) measured 3,602.

2394 hectares. It is bounded on the north by the Municipality of Orion with Mt.

Kaybobo as traditional landmark. On the south is the Municipality of Mariveles with

Mt. Tarak as its landmark. On the west is the Municipality of Bagac with mountain

61
ranges namely Mt. Sabak and Mt. Makulyat. Lastly, on the east side is bounded by

Pulanglupa and Dita, and Mt. Alay-ayon range (NCIP Bataan, 2011).

2. Municipality of Botolan, Zambales

Botolan, officially the Municipality of Botolan, is a first class municipality in the

province of Zambales, Philippines. According to the 2015 census, it has a population

of 57,707 people with a density of 78 inhabitants per square kilometre or 200

inhabitants per square mile (PSA, 2015). It has a territorial land area of 73, 528

hectares with a general rugged terrain sloping towards the West Philippine Sea.

Figure 5: Map of Botolan, Zambales

Source: Map of Zambales (Wikipedia)

Botolan is one of the towns where the Aytas are found and of the 31 barangays,

eleven of which in its eastern part are known to be inhabited by the Aytas. These are

the barangays of Belbel, Burgos, Cabatuan, Maguisguis, Malomboy, Moraza,

Nacolcol, Owaog, Palis, Poonbato, and Villar. The claimed ancestral domain contains

62
an area totaling to 20, 567.889 hectares. It is bounded by Mt. Buhenlawak and Mt.

Kawayen, streams of Gaway, Bancal, and Buwabo on the north. The mountains of

Lina, Antogen, Makakhal, and Panyabutan on the south. On the west are the

mountains of Liwitan, Patal Bara, Mabibituen, and Mohon. The eastern part of the

domain is Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Patal Pinto (NCIP Zambales, 2008).

D. Profile of the Beneficiaries

It is a known fact that the Philippine Archipelago is one of the countries in Southeast

Asia which is considered as the melting pot of different ethnic groups. These ethnic

groups are also called cultural minorities. Cultural minorities are any category of

people with recognizable racial, religious, or ethnic trait that place it in the position of

low esteem and that serve as the basis for unequal treatment (McHenry et. al, 2013).

Among these indigenous peoples are the Aetas.

The Aeta, also known as Aytas or Agtas, are Indigenous People who live in scattered,

isolated mountainous parts of the Philippines. They are nomadic and build only

temporary shelters made of sticks driven to the ground and covered with the palm of

banana leaves. The well-situated and more modernized Aetas have moved to villages

and areas of cleared mountains. They live in houses made of bamboo and cogon grass

(Balilla et. al, 2012; Teves, 2004).

In Bataan, Aytas found in the province are related to the Nomadic Negrito group

situated in Bataan-Zambales area. Small Ayta settlements are scattered in the towns

of: Dinalupihan, Hermosa, Orani, Samal, Abucay, Orion, Limay, Mariveles, Bagac,

63
and Morong. Their mother tongue is Magbukon (pronounced as Magbeken) while

others can also speak Sambal dialect. The Aeta-Magbukon are one of the least studied

Indigenous groups in the Philippines, and despite the encroaching population of non-

Indigenous peoples, they have maintained a primarily traditional hunter-gatherer

existence (Balila et al, 2012). Aetas in Limay, however in particular, have adopted the

lowland culture and even embraced the Catholic religion.

Based on the census conducted by the NCIP with People’s Development Initiatives

(PDI), a non-government organization (NGO), the list of AD claimants covering two

sitios in two barangays in Limay, Bataan is as follows (NCIP Bataan, 2011):

Table 2: Population of Two Barangays in Limay, Bataan

Sitio/ Barangay IP Population Non-IP Total Population

Population

Sitio Kinaragan, 187 115 302

Barangay Duale

Sito Aryada, 41 23 64
Barangay Alangan

228 138 366

Source: NCIP Bataan. (2011). CADT Application of the Ayta Magbukon ICC/IPs of Limay, Bataan
[Recognition Book]. San Fernando: NCIP Regional Office III Central Luzon.

On the other hand, the Aetas of Zambales are the indigenous inhabitants of the Mt

Pinatubo, which is located along the boundaries of Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales

and is part of the Cabusilan Mountains in the southern part of Zambales (Teves,

2004).

64
Furthermore, in the municipality of Botolan, Zambales, the claimed ancestral domain

is composed of 1,098 families covering the four barangays of Burgos, Villar, Moraza,

and Belbel (NCIP Zambales, 2008). The breakdown is listed hereafter.

Table 3: Population of Four Barangay in Botolan, Zambales

Barangays No. of No. of No of. Migrants

Families Individuals
IP Non-IP

Burgos 215 715 143 57

Villar 507 1, 932 56 65

Moraza 233 757 61 24

Belbel 143 653 65 7

1, 098 4, 057 325 153

Source: NCIP Zambales. (2008). Ayta Ancestral Domain of Belbel, Burgos, Moraza, Villar
[Recognition Book]. San Fernando: NCIP Regional Office III Central Luzon.

In addition, they are the primary participants since this research is centered on the

process of their certificate of ancestral domain titles. The researchers focused their

study to the Aeta communities in Bataan and Zambales because they are depicted as

one of the most disadvantaged groups in the Philippines as rooted in their evident

distinction from the mainstream society (Asian Development Bank, 2002). Second,

they are considered to be the most affected sector in terms of development and

become part of people who are landless, unemployed, and marginalized (Manaligod,

1990). Finally, for more than a decade of their application, Aetas Magbukon are not

yet awarded with their CADT.

65
E. Profile of Agencies

1. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)

In pursuant with the Indigenous Peoples’ Right Act of 1997, the NCIP is the primary

government agency that formulates and implements policies, plans, and programs for

the recognition, promotion, and protection of the rights of IPs with due regard to their

ancestral domains and lands, self-governance and empowerment, social justice and

human rights, and cultural integrity. It is mandated to protect and promote the interest

and well-being of indigenous peoples and acknowledge their beliefs, customs,

traditions and institutions (NCIP, 2017).

The NCIP is an independent agency under the Office of the President and composed

of seven (7) Commissioners belong to ICCs/IPs, one (1) of whom is the Chairperson.

The Commissioners are all appointed by the President of the Philippines from a list of

recommendees submitted by authentic ICCs/IPs. The seven (7) Commissioners, as

prescribed by the law, are appointed specifically from each of the following

ethnographic areas: Region I and the Cordilleras; Region II; the rest of Luzon; Island

Groups including Mindoro, Palawan, Romblon, Panay and the rest of the Visayas;

Northern and Western Mindanao; Southern and Eastern Mindanao; and Central

Mindanao. Currently, the chairperson of the commission is Atty. Leonor T. Oralde-

Quintayo (NCIP, 2017).

As illustrated (Appendix A), the commission is consists of seven offices namely: the

Ancestral Domain Office; Office on Policy, Planning and Research; Office of

66
Education, Culture and Health; Office on Socio-Economic Services and Special

Concerns; Office of Empowerment and Human Rights; Administrative Office; and

Legal Affairs Office. Apart from the central office located at 2nd Floor N. dela

Merced Building, Cor. West and Quezon Avenues, Quezon City, there are also 12

NCIP regional offices and 108 Community Centers found across the Philippines.

For the purpose of this research, the Ancestral Domain Office is the main office

consulted because it is responsible for the identification, delineation, and recognition

of ancestral lands/ domains. Also, it has the responsibility for the management of

ancestral lands/domains in accordance with a master plan. Moreover, it is mandated to

ensure the proper implementation of the ancestral domain rights of the ICCs/IPs, as

provided in Chapter III of the Act (IPRA of 1997).

Furthermore, NCIP Region III Office, as indicated by the commission, is physically

located in strategic geographical sites to maximize the delivery of basic services and

technical support to ICCs/IPs which is located in the 3rd floor KL Building, Consunji

Street, City of San Fernando, Pampanga. The regional offices are consistent with the

mandates and organizational objectives of the commission; however, these are only

grounded to particular clientele such as in Region III wherein it caters to the IPs from

the Provinces of Bulacan, Aurora, Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, Pampanga, Zambales, and

Bataan (NCIP RO III, 2017).

The organizational structure under the regional office of the NCIP is illustrated in

Appendix B. It is divided into two offices: the Finance and Administrative Division,

and Technical Management Division. There are also five provincial offices in the

67
region found in the provinces of Aurora, Tarlac, Nueva Ecija, Bataan, and Zambales

(NCIP, 2017). At present, the total number of employees of the commission is 1,588.

The central office is composed of 118 personnel while the regional offices sum up

with 300 personnel. Most of the personnel of the commission are found in the

provincial offices and community services with 414 and 756 personnel, respectively

(NCIP Citizen’s Charter, 2017).

The programs of the commission are divided into four specifically—policy

formulation, planning and coordination of programs and activities; ancestral domain

and land security program; gender and rights-based program; and IP Education,

Culture, and Health Program. Frontline Services offered by the NCIP are the issuance

of consent, issuance certification of non-overlap, certificates of tribe membership,

educational assistance program, and certificate of ancestral domain title (NCIP

Citizen’s Charter, 2017).

2. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

In accordance to Executive Order 192 (1987), the DENR is the primary agency

responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the

country’s environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands,

mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the

public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may

be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived

therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.

68
Once classified as alienable and disposable, the agency is also involved in the conduct

of cadastral surveys and in the titling of public lands through administrative

procedures. For lands classified as part of the public domain, DENR manages the

issuance of tenure instruments over forest lands and protected areas, including the

granting of resource use rights for forest products and mineral explorations through

permits and leases (DENR, 2018).

The DENR is consists of six bureaus namely: Mines and Geosciences Bureau, Forest

Management Bureau, Land Management Bureau, Biodiversity Management Bureau,

Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, and Environmental Management

Bureau. There are also 16 Regional Environment and Natural Resources Offices

across the country (DENR, 2018).

Moreover, the DENR RO III is located at Diosdado Macapagal Government Center,

Maimpis, City of San Fernando, Pampanga. The regional office of the department has

eight divisions which is clustered into two services; mainly the Management Services

and the Technical Services. Seven (7) Provincial Environment and Natural Resources

Offices (PENROs) and twelve (12) Community Environment and Natural Resources

Offices (CENROs) are serving the mandate of the DENR in Region 3. These are:

PENROs Aurora, Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales;

and CENROs Casiguran, Dingalan, Dinalupihan, Bagac, Tabang, Baliuag,

Cabanatuan, Munoz, Capas, Camiling, Olongapo, and Masinloc (DENR RO III,

2018).

69
3. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)

The Department of Agrarian Reform is the lead government agency that upholds and

implements comprehensive and genuine agrarian reform which actualizes equitable

land distribution, ownership, agricultural productivity, and tenurial security for, of,

and with the tillers of the land towards the improvement of their quality of life (DAR,

2013). It is also involved in the issuance of homestead patents and in the distribution

of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to its farmer beneficiaries on the

same lands that are being titled by the DENR.

Four main offices are found in the central office of the department—Legal Affairs

Office; Finance, Planning, and Administration Office; Supports Service Office; and

Field Operations Office. There are also 15 Regional Offices and 73 Provincial Offices

of the department found around the nation (DAR, 2013). Specifically, the DAR RO

III is situated in Pedmar Building, Dolores, City of San Fernando, Pampanga.

4. Land Registration Authority (LRA)

In accordance with Presidential Memorandum Circular of September 30, 1988, the

National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA) was change

into the Land Registration Authority which is an agency under the Department of

Justice responsible for issuing decrees of registration and certificates of title and

register documents, patents, and other land transactions for the benefit of landowners,

agrarian-reform beneficiaries, and the registering public in general; providing a

secure, stable and trustworthy record of land ownership and recorded interests therein

70
so as to promote social and economic well-being and contribute to the national

development (LRA, 2018).

The agency is composed of two (2) divisions, four (4) services, and an office, these

are: Planning and Management Division, Information Communication and

Technology Division, Administrative Service, Financial Service, Land Registration

Service, Legal Service, and the Office of the Registrar of Deeds. There are 168 LRA

field offices across the 16 regions in the country. In Region III, it is located in the

Provincial Capitol Compound, San Fernando City, Pampanga (LRA, 2017).

The basic services of the LRA are: Issuance of Title on Registered Land, Annotation

on Title, Chattel Mortgage Registration, Cancellation / Release of Mortgage, Issuance

of Certified True Copies of Title, and Query / Research. It embarked on a

computerization project in 2008, which aimed at capturing all records and

computerizing transactions and services (LRA, 2018).

71
 Chapter VI

Findings and Analysis

In this chapter, the data as well as the findings and analysis are presented. This section

is divided into seven parts. The first part discusses the Ancestral Domain Delineation

and Recognition Process of 2002, 2008 and 2012. The second part focuses on the

CADTs in the Philippines and ancestral domains of Region 3 - Central Luzon. The

third part is where the case study is presented. Direct application of Aeta Magbukon

in Limay, Bataan and Aeta Zambal in Botolan, Zambales are discussed and examined.

Furthermore, the Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order is discussed on

how it is the binding agreement between the agencies concerned with the CADT

Delineation and Recognition Process, including its loopholes and problems. The

succeeding part tackles and narrates the process itself as experienced by the Aeta

Magbukon and Aeta Zambal, respectively. It also consists of the challenges and

hindrances faced by the community on the application for CADT. These factors were

plotted in the specific parts of the process. Finally, the last two parts centered on the

agencies concerned with CADT process namely, the National Commission on

Indigenous Peoples which looked more into the Ancestral Domain Office and the

Regional Office in Central Luzon; and the Department of Environment Natural

Resources, Department of Agrarian Reform, and Land Registration Authority. The

aforementioned parts also identify the conflicts between the agencies and their

overlapping jurisdictions.

72
A. Ancestral Domain Delineation and Recognition Process 2002, 2008, and 2012

Figure 6: AD & AL Delineation and Recognition Flowchart 2002

73
Figure 7: AD & AL Delineation and Recognition Flowchart 2008

74
Figure 8: AD & AL Delineation and Recognition Flowchart 2012

75
As what was mentioned above, the NCIP Administrative Order No. 4 Series of 2012

is the revised omnibus rules and delineation and recognition of ancestral domains and

lands. In the history of the revision of the CADT delineation process, the three

flowcharts (2002, 2008, and 2012) have significantly changed from time to time. To

be specific, the 2002 version of the flowchart consists of 28 steps and 5 steps for the

conversion of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADCs) to Certificate of Ancestral

Domain Titles (CADTs) and Certificate of Ancestral Land Claims (CALCs) to Certificate

of Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs), 26 steps for the 2008 version and of 32 steps for the

2012. In order for the process maps to be compared, the researchers identified seven

major phases which are the filing phase, funding phase, social preparation and

mobilization phase, data gathering phase, surveying phase, approval phase, and

registration phase.

1. Comparison of 2002 and 2008 Flowchart

The 2002 and 2008 flowcharts have huge number of differences at the start of the

process since technicalities and formalities must be done on the conversion in the

2002 flowchart. Before the first phase starts in 2002, it must be stressed that the

processes that include the information dissemination, and the transfer of records must

first take place. The first phase, which is the filing phase for both versions, are the

same; documents must be completed. Next, the funding phase is obviously not

elaborated as a step in the 2002 flowchart, while the 2008 directly specified the phase

in the flowchart. After the funding phase, the social preparation and mobilization

phase, which let the communities be briefed and informed on their part in the CADT

process, lacks in 2002 but became present in the 2008. However, on the data-

76
gathering phase, the latter version is more concentrated on the validation rather than

the data-gathering itself. On the other hand, the 2008 version provided more detailed

steps in data-gathering and validation of the results. The next phases, which are the

surveying phase, the approval phase, and the registration phase, are more similar for

both years.

2. Comparison of 2008 and 2012 Flowchart

In the filing phase of the 2008 and 2012 flowchart, the researchers found that in the

former, before the applicant can file for an application, the required documents are

being assessed first if they are sufficient or not. In the 2012 flowchart, after these

documentary proofs were reviewed, the transmission of the copy of application will

be forwarded to the DENR as well as the preparation of the financial and working

plans. If funds will be available at the earliest possible time, the project can now be

considered to operate right away. Then, for a span of 15 days, all stakeholders should

be notified about the delineation activities. However, the researchers discovered a

scattered flow in the 2008 version. One important criticism here is that the funding

phase is in line with the assessment of documents phase. In the improved version of

process, the documents are first made sure that they are reviewed and evaluated by the

PDT before the application is funded, this is contrary to the 2008 version.

Upon the notification to all stakeholders, the social preparation and mobilization

phase is along with the process. In this phase, the conduct of community-wide

information, education and consultation is being accomplished. After this, there will

be a validation and research on the community’s political structure, data-gathering,

77
and documentation, ocular inspection, validation of proofs and surveys, and the

resolution of conflicts and disputes if any. These steps are done simultaneously,

Moreover, there were no changes in these phases both in the 2008 and 2012

flowchart.

After the data-gathering phase, the next step will be the preparation of social

preparation accomplishment report or the SPAR within 45 days. These steps

significantly differ from the two flowcharts. In 2012, SPAR still needs to be reviewed

by the regional review body (RRB) for 15 days, and will only be issued for work

order if the SPAR is endorsed by the Ancestral Domain Office (ADO) ,while the 2008

flowchart proceeds right away with the issuance of work order.

After which, the process undergoes the issuance of work order by ADO, and then

followed by the actual surveying phase consisting of series of on-site work including

the mission planning, reconnaissance, establishment of project control, perimeter

survey, and survey returns preparation. Next is the verification and projection of the

survey returns by ADO and the Ancestral Domain/ Ancestral Land survey plan

validation. After all the survey plan work-related activities, there is a need for public

notice and publication of CADT application in 30 days in local newspaper. Then, the

survey plan shall be submitted to the three partner agencies namely, DENR, DAR,

and LRA for the research and segregation of titles. If accomplished, the survey plan

will be approved.

The next phase, which is the approval phase, has also little differences from the 2008

and 2012 flowchart. In the latter version, Provincial Delineation Team/ Community

78
Delineation Team (PDT/CDT) endorses recognition book to RRB to whom also be

evaluated and endorsed to the ADO. Consequently, the ADO shall endorse it to the

commission right after. However, the 2012 version allows the PDT/CDT submission

to the RRB for review, then RRB analyzes the report and initiates a joint conference.

After the conference, the RRB submits a report to the regional director, which will

later on be endorsed to ADO for review. If the ADO finds it sufficient, it will be

forwarded to ethnographic commissioner, and issue the CADT for deliberation. As

the researchers noticed, the steps are almost similar but looking at it closely, the RRB

review to ADO review, and the ADO review to ADO endorsement of CADT

application are separated into two different phases so as to emphasize the difference

of the working groups involved.

Finally, the registration phase involves the processes of deliberation of CADT

application, preparation and signing of CADT, registration, awarding of registered

CADT, and lastly, the recording of the approved survey plan with the Land

Management System-DENR regional office and the LRA. In this phase, a huge

difference for the two flowcharts can be observed as the 2012 flowchart requires a

consultation or projection with the different agencies involved in the Joint

Administrative Order.

In the span of 10 years, the revisions made were the saturation of the procedures in

order to recognize a sound step-by-step process, and to avoid the collision with other

steps. A specific number of days was allotted to ensure that process are observed

properly. Although the steps changed gradually, it provides more detailed and specific

79
procedures. The transition from 2008 to 2012 can be considered as a remarkable

change as it constitutes the implementation of the Joint Administrative Order of 2012.

B. Approved CADTs in the Philippines

Table 4: Distribution (No. of CADTs) of Approved in the Philippines by Year

Summary of Approved CADTs
As of January 31, 2018
By Year
Year IP Right
# Total Area (Hectares)
Approved Holders
2002 2 41,255.9696 18,283
2003 9 325420.1149 58,389
2004 18 236,436.4325 73,421
2005 9 237,297.8751 36,743
2006 18 269,050.5065 50,847
2007 2 94,425.7497 22,585
2008 38 1,306,264.511 314,712
2009 45 1,131,622.981 269,317
2010 15 654,638.5609 68,698
2011 0 0 0
2012 2 20,148.1821 6,100
2013 7 187,499.4139 20,430
2014 10 117,333.5658 34,712
2015 21 317,636.7697 110,692
2016 12 254,233.6774 49,254
2017 11 198,157.7915 67,072
2018 0 0 0
Total 219 5,391,422.102 1,201,255
Source: NCIP Ancestral Domain Office

80
The table shows the number of approved CADTs by year in the Philippines. A total of

219 ancestral domains were approved by the NCIP in the past 16 years. In 2009, the

NCIP approved the most number of CADT applications with a total of 45 Approved

CADTs. However, the table given by the NCIP Ancestral Domain Office did not

show how many of these Approved CADTs were already registered by the Land

Registration Authority and the titles awarded to the Aeta Communities.

Figure 9: Summary of Approved CADTs in the Philippines by Year

81
Table 5: Distribution (No. of CADTs) of Approved in the Philippines Per Region

Per Region
Regions No. of Total Area (Hectares) IP Rights
LUZON 94 2,600,186.167 498,468
CAR 21 350,786.9133 270,830
Region 01 8 51,253.9973 27,807
Region 02 13 104,1570.57 77,470
Region 03 18 178,192.9313 27,470
Region 04 25 936,471.0612 73,029
Region 05 9 41,910.694 21,862
VISAYAS 10 56,452.6804 13,759
Region 06/07 10 56,452.6804 13,759
MINDANAO 115 2,734,783.246 867,735
Region 09 13 208,825.2774 54,107
Region 10 26 345,186.1374 85,117
Region 11 28 1,096,541.629 260,566
Region 12 27 575,170.5175 213,536
Region 13 21 509,059.6843 74,409
Total 219 5,391,422.102 1,201,255
Source: NCIP Ancestral Domain Office

Table 5 shows the distribution of Approved CADTs per region. Luzon, Visayas, and
Mindanao have 94, 10, and 115 Approved CADTs respectively with a total of 219.
Region 11 (Davao Region) has the most number of Approved CADTs with 28,
followed by Region 12 (SOCCSKSARGEN) and Region 10 (Northern Mindanao)
with 27 and 26 in particular.

82
 Figure 10: Summary of Approved CADTs Per Region

C. Ancestral Domains in Central Luzon

Figure 11: Map of the Entire Region III

Source: NCIP Region III Office

83
The illustration provides an overview of the whole map of the entire Region III

marked with categories under the following; Registered CADTs, Approved CADTs,

Surveyed Ancestral Domain, Cadteables, Philippine Air Force, PAF Overlap, and the

Nagtipun CADT. The Registered CADTs implies that the CADT was already

recorded by the Land Registration Authority while the category of Approved CADTs

was only approved by the NCIP but still awaits the certifications of non-overlap from

DENR, DAR, and LRA which are required for final registration. Moreover, the

Surveyed Ancestral Domain pertains to those lands where the NCIP had conducted

projection of the AD/AL total area. CADTeables refers to the existing land areas

which can be possibly registered as ancestral domain titles. Lastly, the map also

recognizes the existence of the Philippine Air Force, and some areas that overlaps

within its location.

84
 Table 6: Breakdown of CADT Categories in Region III

No. Remarks

A.] Registered 6 5 Registered in NCIP Region 3,

1 Registered in Region 2 but
under the jurisdiction of NCIP
Region 3

B.] On-Going Registration 13

(Approved in NCIP Level)

C.] Continuing Appropriation 8

D.] Current Appropriation 4 (Carranglan was already

(CY 2017) counted in on the On-going
Registration)

E.] CADTeables 19

F.] Coordinated 1 Maamot CADT

TOTAL 51

Based on the CADT database of the NCIP, the CADTS and CADTeables of the entire

Region III are further summarized into categories. There are already six (6) existing

registered CADTs covering a total of 38,852.88 hectares spread throughout the

following; 1.) Bataan, 2.) Tarlac and Pampanga, 3.) Aurora, 4.) Pampanga and

Zambales, 5.) Botolan, Zambales and Aurora. The On-going Registration pertains to

ancestral domain only approved in the NCIP level and waits the confirmation of

DENR, DAR, and LRA. A total of thirteen (13) ancestral domains, with a total land

coverage of exactly 128,743.62 hectares, are currently being processed for approval.

85
Figure 12: Summary of the Entire Region III CADTs/CADTeables

86
Figure 13: Map of Registered & Approved CADTs, Surveyed AD

& CADTeables in the Province of Bataan

Source: NCIP Region III Office

87
For further clarity of the subject of the research, the illustration above shows the

detailed Registered CADTs, Approved CADTs, Surveyed CADR, and CADTeables

distribution in the province of Bataan. The CADT no. R03-HER-0703-008-A was the

only registered ancestral domain title in the entire Bataan. The land title covered

exactly 4, 282.1256 hectares which was given to the Ayta Ambala of Barangay Tipo

in Hermosa, Bataan. Approved CADTs. Additionally, it also portrays the area already

under the approved CADTs and those which already have survey plans. The map also

shows four (4) ancestral domains which can be registered under CADT amounting to

21,186.69 hectares spread throughout in the municipality of Dinalupihan and the

Barangays of Mabiga, Bamban, Hermosa/PAG-ASA, Orani, Banawag, and Bagac in

the whole province of Bataan.

88
Figure 14: Map of Registered & Approved CADTs, Surveyed AD

& CADTeables in the Province of Zambales

Source: NCIP Region III Office

89
Moving to the detailed categorization in the province of Zambales, the Registered

CADTs only represents the CADT No. R03-BOT-0708-073 covering almost 16,000

hectares. Based on NCIP’s CADT Database, it covers the Barangays of Belbel,

Burgos, Moraza, and Villar in the municipality of Botolan, Zambales. The map does

not take into account the other land title which is the CADT No. R03-FLO-1206-057-

A which includes a portion of San Marcelino and Subic in the same province. Lastly,

the areas which are CADTeables are comparably larger than those in Bataan. As of

2017, it covers at least seven (7) ancestral domains, with a total of 109, 267.77

hectares, which are not yet currently projected in the map.

Figure 15: Summary of CADT Categories in Bataan and Zambales

90
D. Case Study

1. Direct CADT Application of Aeta-Magbukon in Limay, Bataan

The Aetas (also referred to as Aytas) of Sitio Kinaragan of Barangay Duale and Sitio

Aryada of Barangay Kitang 2, Limay, Bataan belong to the Magbukon (pronounced

as Magbeken) Linguistic group. Magbukon is the indigenous dialect of the Aeta tribes

in Bataan which is potentially extinct due to cultural erosion and modernity brought

by the lowlanders. Limay is located in the southern part of Bataan, approximately 15

kilometers from the provincial capital. The total land area covers 10, 362 hectares.

Based on the census conducted by the NCIP Region 3, there were 779 individuals

divided into 150 households in the year 2015.

The Aetas of Limay directly applied on January 6, 2004, a CADT covering 3,595.648

hectares and was approved by the NCIP on December 9, 2015. The approved

project’s cost for delineation was P299,893 and a supplement budget of P316,417.50.

91
SUMMARY OF THE DIRECT CADT APPLICATION OF AETA-MABUKON

IN LIMAY, BATAAN

PRELIMINARY ACTIVITY

March 3, 2003 - A resolution for delineation and titling from the Aeta-

Magbukon was filed at the NCIP-Bataan Provincial

Office. The application was supported by a petition filed

by the tribal leaders of the Aeta-Magbukon of Limay,

Bataan.

PROCESS IN THE VALIDATION OF DOCUMENTS AND GATHERING OF

PROOFS BY THE PROVINCIAL DELINEATION TEAM (PDT)

January 6, 2004 - Formal application of the Aeta-Magbukon for issuance of

CADT.

August 2, 2004 - Special Provincial Task Force (SPTF) and Provincial

Delineation Team (PDT) meeting on the CADT

Application.

August 3, 2004 - Fabrication and installation of concrete boundary

monuments at Kinaragan Duale, Limay, Bataan CADT

claimed by Aeta-Magbukon.

August 7, 2004 - Information Education Consultation on IPRA at the

Ancestral Domain area to Aeta-Magbukon by the Special

Provincial Task Force (SPTF).

92
August 13, 2004 - Work Order No. 08-13-04.

August 19, 2004 - Application documents for CADT application (researching

and compiling of necessary documents).

October 22, 2004 - First Actual Ground Survey

November 2004 - Work Order No. 11-02-02 to conduct of a perimeter

survey.

December 1, 2004 - Monumentation/perimeter survey of the CADT

application of the Aeta-Magbukon of Sitio Kinaragan,

Brgy. Duale, Limay, Bataan.

December 16, - Conduction of Information, Education & Consultation

2004 (IEC) at the Ancestral Domain area to Aeta-Magbukon by

the Special Provincial Task Force (SPTF).

March 4, 2005 - 1st Endorsement

March 18, 2005 - Dialogue on the CADT application of Kinaragan, Limay,

Bataan.

December 5, 2007 - Perimeter survey within the mountainous area of Limay,

Bataan.

January 23, 2008 - Special Provincial Task Force (SPTF) meeting on the

CADT Application of Aeta-Magbukon relative to the

delineation and titling of ancestral domain.

93
February 21-28, - Request for supplemental budget for the Delineation and

2008 Titling of AD claim.

March 3, 2008 - Submission of tribal resolution for the continuation of the

suspended delineation of the CADT application of Aeta-

Magbukon.

March 6, 2009 - Special Provincial Task Force (SPTF) meeting on the

CADT Application

February 2009 - Gathering of data and documents and evidences by the

Provincial Delineation Team (PDT).

February 21-22, - First Census of Population

2009

May 5, 2009 - Validation of Genealogy of the clans in Limay Bataan

November 18, - Sub-allotment of P355, 200.00 to NCIP Region III.

2009

March 2010 - Genealogical Survey

SURVEY PROCESS

March 2010 - Census of Population

June 26, 2010 - Social Preparation Accomplishment report regarding the

CADT application of the Aeta-Magbukon.

September 21, - Conduction of perimeter survey of CADT application of

94
2010 Aeta-Magbukon.

October 7, 2010 - Survey Notification Letters

October 10, 2010 - Ocular inspection by survey party members and the PDT

October 11, 2010 - Mission meeting for the delineation activities relative to

the CADT application and stakeholders meeting.

- Mission planning meeting conducted by Community

Development Officer-NCIP attended by the

representatives from DAR, DENR, and claimants adjacent

to the CADT application.

November 11-29, - Second Census of Population.

2010

November 18 & - Consultation meeting to elders and conduction of survey

20, 2010 by NCIP

- Perimeter Survey & Observation of Control Points

November 27, - First Submission of testimony of Aeta elder.

2010

December 2010 & - Establishment of Project Controls

April 23, 2011

April 1-22, 2011 - Preparation of the survey returns of the perimeter survey

of Magbukon Tribe in Sitio Kinaragan, Brgy. Duale,

Limay, Bataan.

95
April 28-29, 2011 - Observation of survey control monument BTN-35 &

BTN-39 conducted by the NCIP Engineers.

October 23, 2010- - Actual Ground Survey

April 23, 2011

May 2-31, 2011 - Gathering and Validation of Proofs. Validation of survey

map in Sitio Kinaragan, Brgy Duale, Limay, Bataan.

- Community Map Validation. Validation of the Survey

Map of the Ancestral domain (AD) Claim.

- Releasing of resolution recognizing the Aeta leaders who

served as key informants. And a resolution recognizing the

NGOs/LGUs as assisting partners.

June 2, 2011 - Review and verification report on genealogy of the direct

CADT application of Aeta-Magbukon

September 26, - Second Submission of testimony of Aeta elder

2011

September 30, - 1st Endorsement in support to the direct the CADT

2011 Application of the Aeta-Magbukon.

October 15, 2011 - Review and verification of the Direct CADT application

PROJECTION OF THE SURVEY PLAN

May 31, 2012 - Review and verification report of the regional review body

96
 on the Recognition Book.

June 5, 2012 - 2nd Endorsement for evaluation and endorsement to the

Commission En Banc. Endorsement Letter of the Regional

Director to Ancestral Domain Office

September 7, 2012 - ADO Endorsement to Regional Office (RO)

September 13, - Transmittal Letter of RO to DENR/DAR

2012 - Projection, segregation, and verification activities of NCIP

survey plan for Ancestral Domain. Section 13 of the Joint

DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP AO No. 1

September 14, - ADO transmittal letter to LRA on the verified survey plan

2012 for projection

September 14, - Projection Results from DENR, DAR, and LRA

2013

March 26-April 1 - Publication of the CADT Application

& April 2-8, 2012

September 19, - Transmittal of CADT application to DENR-LMB and

2013 DENR-RED

September 26, - Joint Conference of the Regional Review Body (RRB) and

2013 Provincial Delineation Team (PDT)

October 17, 2013 - 1st Endorsement. Submission of Recognition Book for 1st

Reading

97
December 10, - 1st Reading. CADT Deliberation on the Recognition book

2013

March 3, 2014 - Conduction of interview in gathering the testimonies of

elders

June 11, 2014 - Third Submission of testimony of Aeta elder.

July 22, 2014 - Report on the Compliance to on the issues and concerns of

the Honorable Commission

August 27, 2014 - 1st Endorsement for the compliance to the issues and

concerns of the Honorable Commission. Endorsement

Letter of the Regional Director to Ancestral Domain

Office.

September 30, - Compliance to the issues/concerns and recommendation of

2014 the honorable Commission on the Direct CADT

application of CADT. Recommendation for the favorable

action leading to the issuance of the desired CADT.

October 14, 2014 - Fourth Submission of testimony of Aeta elder

November 28, - 2nd Reading. CADT Deliberation on the Recognition book

2014

December 13, - Completion of the required documents and

2014 recommendations raised containing compliance to the

issues/concerns and recommendation of the honorable

98
 Commission on the Direct CADT application of CADT.

April 13, 2015 - Visitation of the Provincial Delineation Team (PDT) to

gather additional documents in support to the CADT

applications.

August 4, 2015 - Report on the compliance to Memorandum Order from the

Executive Director

August 11, 2015 - Submission of testimony of Aeta elders

December 7, 2015 - Submission of the RECOGNITION BOOK to the

Commission En Banc for third reading

December 9, 2015 - The NCIP Approved the CADT Application of Aeta-

Magbukon. The CADT will be registered after the

approval.

Issues and Concerns of the Direct CADT Application of Aeta-Magbukon in

Limay, Bataan

Based on the Recognition Book of the NCIP Region 3 Office, one of the issues that

the CADT application of Aeta-Magbukon had faced was the delay due to the

opposition of the municipal council of Limay, Bataan. They needed to convince and

acquire the consent from Limay Municipal Council regarding the issues of delineation

and titling of ancestral domain in Limay, Bataan. However, the NCIP Bataan

Provincial Office received a letter in February 2008 allowing the NCIP Region 3

99
Office to continue with the survey of the ancestral domain of the Aeta-Magbukon and

the former mayor of Limay, Bataan issued a letter signifying his conformity.

In view of the development, the office commenced the continuation of the conduct of

perimeter survey in the area on November 22, 2010. It took more than two years for

the NCIP Region 3 Office to continue the delineation and recognition process after

the former mayor of Limay, Bataan issued a letter because they were hampered by

financial constraints. As much as the NCIP Regional 3 Office wanted to proceed with

the delineation, the budget was exhausted on February 2008 but the physical

accomplishment of the CADT application of Aeta-Magbukon was only at 50%. As

such, the Office requested for a supplemental budget for the continuation of the

suspended delineation and titling of ancestral domain in Limay, Bataan.

Encroachment of non-Indigenous Peoples inside the ancestral domain was also a

concern in the CADT application of Aeta-Magbukon. DENR representative suggested

to the NCIP Region 3 Office to install billboards within the ancestral domain in

Limay, Bataan stating that the area was undergoing delineation and titling process to

deter non-Indigenous Peoples from encroaching the land area.

Another concern was raised during the 1st reading of the Direct CADT application of

Aeta-Magbukon conducted last December 11, 2013. The diverse customs and

traditions of the Aetas made it difficult for the NCIP Region 3 Office to trace back

beyond five generations in order accomplish and strengthen the genealogy of the

Aetas. The conduct of the genealogy survey by the NCIP Region 3 Office was

unsuccessful at the start because of the cultural taboos and other forms of restrictions

100
that hinder them to trace the ancestry of the earlier generations. Aeta-Magbukon

would not speak the names of their deceased ancestors whenever asked, since

according to them, it is cultural taboo in doing so.

Furthermore, according to the Recognition Book, the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” clearly

stated that by mentioning the names of their deceased and dead ancestors will bring

bad luck such as sickness or death within the family, and calamity among others.

However, the NCIP Region 3 Office told the Aeta-Magbukon to use alias or

nicknames as an alternative in naming their deceased and dead ancestors in order to

obtain the names which are required in the genealogical chart to prove time

immemorial possession of the land. Also, cultural and economic activities of the

Aetas must be identified. Physical evidences such as century old places, worship

grounds, traditional landmarks, arts, and likes must be acquired and relate it to the

claims to establish and thoroughly discussed the time immemorial possession, which

is significant to support their ancestral domain claims in Limay, Bataan. Through this

method, the Provincial Development team (PDT) was able to trace additional

generations in their genealogical charts.

2. Direct CADT Application of Aeta-Zambal in Botolan, Zambales

Considered as one of the most empowered community of Aetas in the Philippines, the

Botolan Aetas of Zambales basks in pride as they claimed ownership over their

ancestral lands in 2009. This group of Aetas was the first inhabitants of Botolan even

before the Spanish colonization. Their struggle of claiming ownership over their

ancestral lands is triggered by foreign and local ventures.

101
In 2009, communities from Brgys. Villar, Burgos, Moraza and Belbel in Botolan,

successfully claimed their Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title. During the initial

stage of the application process, a total of 20,568 hectares of land was being claimed

by Botolan Aetas but later reduced to 15, 998 hectares as a result of segregation of

private lands. The greatest part of their victory was being awarded with ownership

and management of Mt. Pinatubo along with their Certificate of Ancestral Domain

with the remaining piece of ancestral land. The Botolan Aetas are organized under an

umbrella organization called Lubos Alyansa ng mga Katutubong Ayta sa Sambales

(LAKAS). It remains at the forefront in combating the external threats which may

harm its members. The collective efforts of the community exercised by its umbrella

organization ensure that their community is free from deception and exploitation. The

Aeta communities in Botolan, Zambales maintain it responsible ownership and

stewardship over its ancestral lands including Mt. Pinatubo.

102
SUMMARY OF CADT APPLICATION OF AETA- ZAMBAL IN BOTOLAN,

ZAMBALES

PRELIMINARY ACTIVITY

May 9, 2005 - A resolution for Delineation and titling from of Aetas of

Villar, Burgos, Moraza, Belbel

PROCESS IN THE VALIDATION OF DOCUMENTS AND GATHERING OF

PROOFS BY THE PROVINCIAL DELINEATION TEAM

December 27, 2005 - Ocular Inspection with Tribal elder ‘Langkas” and elder

Gaab where they pointed at sacred places and old

settlements

December 29, 2005 - Signing of MOA between PDI, LGU and NAGSIKAP

(IPO)

January 2006 - Information education Campaign on IPRA

- Census of Population (Brgy. Villar. Burgos, Moraza,

Belbel)

January 2006 - August - Genealogical survey (Botolan, Cabagann, Iba,Palauig).

2006 - Occular Inspection in Brgy. Villar, Burgos, Moraza, Belbel

(Botolan, Zambales)

March 24, 2006 - Testimony of Francisco Balintay about landmarks and

boundaries

103
March 30, 2006 - Formation of Special Provincial Task Force (SPTF)

June 29, 2006 - SPTF meeting, Botolan, Zambales

July 17, 2006 - SPTF emergency meeting (Botolan Session Hall)

July 18, 2006 - Nene Ramos narrates personal knowledge on the origin of

their clan

July 19, 2006 - Juliana Balangoy Balintay narrates about tradition land

boundaries of their lands to NCIP representative, Gina

Dayrit

July 27, 2006 - Information Education Campaign on IPRA

- SPTF meeting at Botolan North Central School

SURVEY PROCESS

September 19, 2006 - Request of Zambales Provincial Office for Ground Survey

to RegonalDirectr of NCIP

November 16, 2006 - Issuance of work order No. 11-08-06

November 29-30, 2006 - Distribution of Survey Notification Letters

December 1-6, 2006 - Reconnaissance

January 12, 2007 - Survey proceeded with Elders of claimants

January 29 - March 11, - Installation of ADBMs

2007

104
February 22-March 18, - Observation of ADBMs

2007

March 8, 2007 - NCIP Zambales Provincial Offiice request for GPS

receivers

March 20-29, 2007 - Installation of control monuments

March 29-April 20, - Observation of Control monuments

2007

April 11, 2007 - Submission of Monthly Progress Report for the conversion

of CADC 068 into CADT from OIC Provincial officer

to NCIP R. III, San Fernando, Pampanga

May 3, 2007 - Raising of update reports of the Geodetic Engineer, Review

of the documents gathered and required for the conversion

of CADC 068 into CADT

PROJECTION OF THE SURVEY PLAN

*upon completion of - Community map validation and Projection of Survey Plan

map projection

July 5, 2007 - Gathering of testimonies

July 9, 2007 - Submission of list of patents from DENR to NCIP, Botolan,

Zambales

105
July 30, 2007 - Submission of evaluation report regarding claimbook of

Aeta ICC located in Botolan, Zambales

August 7, 2007 - Request for Land Management Services of NCIP R. III

addressed to DENR R. III

August 29, 2007 - Census Validated

October 30, 2007 - Submission to the Regional Director Sunggod (NCIP

Region III) the claimbook for CAD claim of Villar, Burgos,

Belbel in Botolan, Zambales

October 30, 2007 - Joint conference of the Regional Ad Team (City of San

Fernando, Pampanga)

November 5, 2007 - Review and Verification Report of the CADT on the

claimbook of Ayta Ancestral Domain of Brgys Belbel,

Burgos, Moraza and Villar in Botolan, Zambales

November 9, 2007 - Submission of Recognition Book for the issuance of a

CADT of Aeta Ethnic Community of Botolan, Zambales

November 11, 2007 - Review and Verification on the Petition for conversion of

CADC 068 into CADT, covering Brgys. Villar, Burgos,

Moraza, Belbel Botolan, Zambales

July 29, 2008 - ADO report on the conversion of CADC 078 into CADT of

the Aeta Tribal be situated in the Municipality of Botolan,

Zambales

106
AWARDING

July 31, 2008 - Approved by the NCIP

October 3, 2009 - Registered and Awarded to Aeta-Zambal

Issues and Concerns of the CADT Application of Aeta-Zambal in Botolan,

Zambales

During the first phase of the process, the problems encountered were mostly

composed of deficiencies in the required documents. The census for instance needed

more consolidation and the format was not followed. The genealogy for the

Barangays was not simultaneously accomplished as well. The lack of instrument

(videocam) was a primary barrier why the gathering of narratives were delayed. The

delay was also attributed to the failure of Provincial Officer to inform the Elders and

NAGSIKAP about the submission of compiled documents to Botolan Service Center.

Furthermore, during the second quarter of 2007, there were deficiencies recorded such

as executive and RADT reports. The claimbook was supposed to contain

documentation on the joint conference held among the Provincial and Regional

Delineation Team in the preparation of executive report. The CADT application was

also incomplete because it lacked pictures and notarization. Moreover, the testimonies

were also not notarized. The historical writeups, traditional and political customs, and

other written accounts were not signed by the people involved. The genealogical

charts should have been in columnar form to supplement the information.

107
According to the Recognition Book, during the surveying phase, problems on modes

of transportation to the site was a problem. There was no allocation of budget for the

survey team of Botolan to the actual project site. The typography of the place was also

a factor in setting up the boundary points because of soft sand and lahar. Moreover,

there was a problem in transporting laborers, supplies, and materials to Mt. Pinatubo

because the team was not able penetrate the area due to the high rise cliff and loosen

lahar near the Pinatubo area.

Most of the problems encountered by Aeta-Zambal are related to the shortage of

funds and deficiency in requirements. The genealogical charts along with historical

accounts were also hard to consolidate which made data-gathering more time-

consuming. Surveying and setting up boundary points were also rigorous due to the

natural setting of the land area.

108
3. Summary of the CADT Application of both Aeta Magbukon and Aeta Zambal

Table 7: Summary of the CADT Application of both Aeta-Magbukon and Aeta-

Zambal

Direct CADT CADT

Application of Application of
Aeta-Magbukon Reason/s of the Aeta-Zambal Reason/s of the
in Limay, Delay in Botolan, Delay
Bataan Zambales

Date of January 6, 2004 - May 9, 2005 -

Application

Validation August 2, 2004 – - opposition of December 27, - incomplete set of

of March 2010 the municipal 2005 - July 27, requirements
Documents constraints 2006
and (9 years and 7 (7 months) - incorrect format
Gathering of months) - financial of documents
Proofs by constraints
the - availability of
Provincial - encroachment Elders
Delineation of non-
Team (PDT) Indigenous - consolidation of
Peoples census

- diverse customs - gathering of

and traditions of documents and
the Aetas evidences to
(genealogical support the CADT
survey) application

-gathering of
documents and
evidences to

109
 support the
CADT
application

Survey March 2010 – - gathering of September 16, - lack of funding

Process October 15, 2011 “Sinumpaang 2006 - May 3,
( 1 year and 6 Salaysay” or 2007 - lack of
months) testimony of (8 months) instruments/devices
elders for surveying

- gathering and - transportation

validating proofs problems due to
problems environmental
(validation of conditions
survey map)
- verification of
-verification of genealogical survey
the genealogical
survey - setting up of
boundaries due to
topography

Projection of May 31, 2012 - - projection, July 5, 2007 - - projection,

the Survey December 7, segregation, and July 28, 2008 segregation, and
Plan 2015 verification verification
(3 years and 7 activities (Section (1 year and 23 activities (Section
months) 13 of the Joint days) 13 of the Joint
DAR-DENR- DAR-DENR-LRA-
LRA-NCIP AO NCIP AO No. 1)
No. 1)

- gathering of
“Sinumpaang
Salaysay” or
testimony of

110
 elders

-gathering of
additional
documents to
support the
CADT
application

Approval of December 9, - July 31, 2008 -

the NCIP 2015

Awarding of Not yet awarded - CADT is still in October 3, -

the CADT to as of May 2018 the ongoing 2009
registration
the process of the
community Land Registration
Authority (LRA).

Total
number of 14 years and counting 4 years and 5 months
years

Table 5 shows a timeline of the CADT application of both Aeta-Magbukon and Aeta-

Zambal categorized under the following; validation and gathering of proofs by the

PDT, survey process, projection of the survey plan, approval of the NCIP, and the

awarding of the CADT. Aeta-Magbukon formally applied for issuance of CADT on

January 6, 2004 but they have not yet been awarded the CADT as of May, 2018. On

the other hand, Aeta-Zambal formally applied for issuance of CADT on May 9, 2004

and they have been awarded the CADT on October 3, 2009. The whole CADT

Delineation and Recognition process of the Ancestral Domain of Aeta-Zambal took

five (5) years and four (4) months, in which, according to the NCIP Region III office

can be considered as an efficient CADT application.

111
It is still important to note that they have encountered similar problems along the way.

For instance, CADT application of both Aeta-Magbukon and Aeta-Zambal

experienced shortage of budget in the application process. However, NCIP Region III

Office solved this through seeking and accepting financial help from private citizens

and groups for the CADT application of Aeta-Zambal and requesting a supplement

budget for the CADT application of Aeta-Magbukon. Moreover, the process of

validation of documents and gathering of proofs like genealogical survey, historical

accounts, and validation of proofs (e.g. testimony of elders) became one of the hardest

parts in the process given the diverse customs and traditions of the Aetas.

According to Board Member Danilo Salonga, former chieftain of Aeta-Magbukon,

gathering of the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” was the most laborious part of gathering

proofs because of the cultural taboos and other forms of restrictions that hinder them

to trace the ancestry towards the earlier generations. It was also noticeable that the

CADT application of Aeta-Magbukon took more than nine years to be able to finish

the process of validation of documents and gathering of proofs compared to the

CADT application of Aeta-Zambal, in which, it took only seven (7) months as shown

in Table 7. Both Bataan and Zambales spent a lot of time in data-gathering and tracing

back their history to verify claims over the ancestral lands. Furthermore

documentation was also an issue because of the unavailability of devices, which can

also be attributed to lack of financial resources.

The surveying process also took a large bulk in the whole application process. The

setting up of boundaries became a challenge since there were a lot of claimants in

112
their respective areas. They also had a hard time in gathering the “Sinumpaang

Salaysay” where they based the boundaries of their ancestral domain according to this

Salaysay or the testimony of the elders. The intervention of DAR, DENR, and LRA

also caused bottlenecks in the process of both Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales.

Aeta-Zambal initially dealt with this problem by appealing to the agencies involved.

At the same time, according to the key-informant of Aeta-Zambal, Apo Carling, and

Aeta leaders, including elders of Limay, Bataan, opposing the agencies only

prolonged the process. Instead, they just accepted what these agencies imposed upon

them as long as they were not mistreated and abused.

Aeta-Magbukon experienced high level of politicization because their own municipal

councils hindered their CADT application. Aeta-Zambal somehow experienced this as

well, but they persisted to break the barriers rather than letting them interfere with

their intent to claim their lands. The CADT application of Aeta-Zambal had issues on

deficiencies in the requirements. Likewise, they also encountered difficulties in

transportation during the survey and setting up of boundary points. This was highly

attributed to the topography of the ancestral domain.

E. Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order

To address the conflicting jurisdictions of the four agencies, the JAO stated the

delineation and titling process in case there will be overlapping functions and its

corresponding registration of land tiles. In the event that ancestral domains being

measured by the NCIP overlaps with other tenurial instruments with other agencies,

the JAO takes place by resolving the issue on the ground level through their

113
respective provincial offices. If the issue still persists, the resolution will be

transferred to the regional level, and continues until the top level.

The main problem among DENR, DAR, and LRA is when they have issued titles over

the ancestral domains. Some of the titles are considered to be fraudulent such as the

beneficiaries not living within the DAR’s issued title. Other instances have conflicts

with the projected ancestral domain since it was already declared as agrarian land

covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. As part of the delineation

and titling process, the projected land of NCIP should be submitted to DENR and

DAR. In return, these agencies should issue a Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNO)

before the registration of the ancestral land to the LRA. This requirement has slowed

down the issuance of CADT considering that the CNOs are mandatory requirements

for land registration.

Furthermore, the projected lands are products of the surveys conducted by geodetic

engineers who measured title properties inside the ancestral domain. When the DENR

and DAR have not yet released the CNOs, the projected land of NCIP cannot be

finalized and registered. On the other hand, if the DENR and DAR claims that a

property is actually located inside the projected land, the NCIP will need to send out

survey team again for further clarifications of the conflicted land.

Meanwhile, the NCIP also received complaints from the other agencies. For example,

when the self-delineation of the IPs covers areas more than their actual ancestral

lands. The JAO serves as a form of checks and balance, such as the triumvirate of the

Philippine government system, with agencies serving as oversight institutions to each

114
other. Apart from the written rules and regulations, it served as avenue for the

harmonization of the agencies and prevent encroachment of their respective

jurisdictions. Moreover, the JAO prevents the immediate finalization and issuance of

the concerned titles until the conflicting lands will be addressed. Thus, the Ancestral

Domain Office (ADO) of the NCIP will be prompted to analyze the segregation of

titled properties thoroughly and accurately.

Looking at the provisions of the law, the process of segregation is already time-

bounded. The researchers found that the guidelines already provided the maximum

length of time for the processing of the survey plans.

Section 13 of the JAO stated that prior to the approval of the NCIP, the agency will

furnish DENR, DAR, and LRA a copy of the original survey plan for projection and

verification of existing land titles registered under their agencies. It specifically states

that in the absence of a technical problem, the DENR, DAR, and LRA have thirty (30)

days from the receipt of the Ancestral Domain (AD) Ancestral Land (AL) survey plan

to return the same to the NCIP including the required certification, findings, and

recommendations. In the case where there are overlapping of land titles, the NCIP has

the primary duty to secure all necessary requirements which will be used as references

in the segregation/exclusion process. Then, the amended AD/AL survey plan will be

submitted to the three agencies for the final projection. The DENR, DAR, and LRA

have fifteen (15) days from the receipt of amended survey plan to return the same to

the NCIP and the Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNO).

115
The CNOs which have not yet been released by the DENR, DAR, and LRA can be

attributed to the rigidity of the process. There are several factors for the delay of the

issuance of CNO. For example, some land titles inside the projected ancestral domain

are undergoing trials in the Regional Trial Court or even in the Land Registration

Authority. Some are even claimed by the municipal or the provincial government of

the area.

However, in most cases, the NCIP has minimal interaction with these agencies after

the submission of the survey plan. In the case of Bataan, the projection results

happened from September 13, 2012 up to September 14, 2014. The procedure took

more than two years for the actual segregation process and the release of CNOs. The

NCIP mentioned that they are independent with the other agencies and so, it has no

control beyond their jurisdiction neither it can call out to speed up the processing of

the CNOs. In contrast, with the existence of the Section 13 of the JAO, the NCIP has

the duty to follow-up the necessary requirements that should be returned within the

prescribed number of days. At the same time, the DENR, DAR, and LRA have the

obligations of updating the NCIP if they cannot return the document within the span

of time and should be accompanied with valid reasons specified under the law. As

mentioned, the JAO should serve as a form of checks and balance since they have to

ensure that the provisions under the JAO will be properly executed.

JAO continuous to be an imperative component for land registration because it will be

chaotic without guidelines handling the overlapping jurisdictions of DENR, DAR,

LRA, and NCIP. In 2004, the first CADT issued which was located in Karahume, San

Jose Del Monte Bulacan, did not undergo the process of segregation. In turn, the

116
community had the first impression that the whole ancestral domain was already

under their ownership. Even so, landowners had asserted their rights over their titles

properties inside the ancestral domain, and eventually resulted into a bloodbath.

Therefore, it is integral to fully explain the rationale behind the conflicting titles to the

indigenous communities and why the properties registered, before the existence of

IPRA, should be acknowledged.

F. Group Discussion and Key Informant Interview

1. Aeta Magbukon of Limay, Bataan

The Aeta Magbukon of Limay Bataan has been fighting for their right to self-

determination since 2004, but despite their continuous effort to claim their ancestral

domain, their certificate of ancestral domain title has not yet been received. In April 1,

2018, a group discussion was held with the Aeta Magbukon represented by Hon.

Danilo Salonga, Chieftain Bagsik-Rosales, Mr. Mario Bagsik, and Ms. Carmelita

Diego in Kinaragan, Limay, Bataan. The interviews with the Aeta Magbukon

reflected their gratitude to the National Commission on Indigenous People because of

their responsiveness. The group did not express negative commentaries in the

institution; thus, they were satisfied given the NCIP’s constant support to process the

ancestral domain title of Limay, Bataan. When asked about the most tedious part in

the process, the elders noted the difficulty in securing sworn testimonies from elders

and the political intervention in their areas.

117
The sworn testimonies are essential in NCIP’s projection of survey perimeters of the

area since these are part of the initial processes of the delineation and recognition. The

testaments are acquired from at least four (4) elders/leaders attesting the following as

stated in the Section 2, Rule III of the Administrative Order No. 4: (1) the identity of

their leaders and original settlers based on their ethno-history, (2) the fact that they

have possessed, occupied, claimed and used the territory and the resources therein as

AD/AL claim since time immemorial, (3) the description of the metes and bounds or

traditional landmarks of the AD/AL claimed, as well as the land use practiced.

According to the elders, they found difficulty in providing proofs from the local

government unit which states that the Aeta Magbukon were the first inhabitants of the

area. Due to the Mayor’s lack of support to the Indigenous Peoples, delays and

backlogs occurred in the projection of surveys in the commonalities of the sworn

testimonies of the elders. According to the elders, the Aetas together with the NCIP,

NGOs, and the church appealed to the Mayor asking to continue surveying the

ancestral lands but there was no positive response. The surveying only continued

when the said mayor lost in the local elections. In the process, they were individually

asked to sketch their ancestral domain areas and they visited the boundaries together

with the PDT of the NCIP.

2. Aeta Zambal of Botolan, Zambales

The CADT application of the Aeta-Zambal from Botolan, Zambales is considered as

one of the fast-paced application processes recorded, according to the NCIP Region

III Office. The researchers conducted an interview with the Apo Carling who

118
personally led the whole application process for Aeta-Zambal in Botolan, Zambales.

He was in charge of the communication with the government agencies and was the

contact person of the Aeta Zambal in the whole CADT application process.

Meanwhile, Raul dela Cruz, also one of the representatives of Aeta-Zambal in

Botolan, was tasked to set up the boundaries of their ancestral domain. According to

Apo Carling, their application started during the Presidency of Fidel Ramos (CADC)

and was finished during the Presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (CADT). The

claim included 16,000 hectares of land which covered four (4) barangays.

Additionally, Apo Carling stated that the National Commission on Indigenous

Peoples facilitated the process by establishing a relationship with the community. The

NCIP conducted meetings and seminars which helped in the dissemination of

information.

However, the key-informant also mentioned problems they have encountered along

the application period. The first one mentioned was the set of requirements in the

process. According to him, it was rigorous because NCIP needed a lot of information

about their history and genealogy. Genealogical chart was also quite hard to create

because it covered 10 clans. Second, the local dialect of Zambal was considered as a

hindrance at first, but the leaders who represented them served as a bridge between

NCIP and the Aeta community. Third, the surveying process was one of the most

tedious phases of the process since their boundaries cover mountains, Mt. Pinatubo,

and other forms of land. As a result, the setting up of boundaries became a barrier in

the fast processing of the title.

119
Apo Carling added that the most challenging part in the application process was there

were a lot of claimants inside the ancestral domain. For instance, the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources claimed pasture lease and lands for reforestation.

Apo Carling added that, DENR “intentionally” prolonged the duration of the process

because according to him, it was a “humiliation” for this agency to release Certificates

of Non-Overlap. Moreover, the Department of Agrarian Reform also had claims on

lands which they say was covered by the agrarian reform. DAR wanted to distribute

the lands from unused properties of the landlords to farmers, but these areas were also

part of the ancestral domain. Land Registration Authority was mandated to publish

the claims of Aeta-Zambal in order to see if there are private individuals contesting

for the areas they were claiming. According to him, it resulted to segregation of lands;

thus, reducing their claim from 22,000 hectares to 16,000 hectares. The key informant

said that they did not try to appeal because it would only prolong the process and the

government officials were hard to communicate with. Another problem encountered

was the politicization of the process. Apo Carling mentioned that government

agencies favored particular indigenous groups over the others. The preferential

treatment benefited a few tribes while it made the process more rigorous for those

who are not well-favored.

When asked about their advantages in the process, Apo Carling said that the Aeta-

Zambal community was very much involved in the process. They were eager to attend

the meetings conducted by the NCIP and were willing to coordinate in the gathering

of information such as genealogy and setting up boundary points. Their will and intent

to claim their ancestral domain were evidently strong as manifested in the whole

duration of the process. It was also attributed to the strong leadership of those who

120
represented the Aeta-Zambal in Botolan. They were firm enough not to be shaken by

the problems encountered. Moreover, they also sought the help of the private sector

particularly in the funding.

Apo Carling’s recommendation was for the sustainable development of ancestral

domain. According to him, the government should still allocate funds for these lands

for development. Moreover, he suggested that the NCIP, from its provincial satellites

to national level, should expedite the process. They should collaborate rather than

oppose each other all the time.

G. National Commission on Indigenous People

1. Ancestral Domain Office

The Ancestral Domain Office (ADO) is the main office consulted because it is

responsible for the identification, delineation, and recognition of ancestral lands/

domains in accordance with a master plan as well as the implementation of the

ancestral domain rights of the ICCs/IPs as provided in Chapter III of the Act. It has

two divisions: Resource Management Divisions and Recognition Division. The

Recognition Division mainly deals with the CADT delineation and verifies the

authenticity of the survey plans whether there are other observations or corrections.

Engineer Shelly Calata, Engineer III of the ADO simplified the CADT application

stated in the NCIP AO 4 Series of 2012. According to Engineer, there are two kinds

121
of forms, one is for the direct application and the other is for conversion. The

conversion addresses the land titles issued by the DENR since it was the agency

responsible for ancestral domain prior to the establishment of NCIP in 1997. The

direct application process started with the IP or ICC filling to the nearest Community

Service Center (CSC) or Provincial Office (PO). The CSCs and POs are strategically

located so that IPs applying can easily access the services of the commission. Then,

the CSCs or POs receive their application for the Community Delineation Team

(CDT) or Provincial Delineation Team (PDT) to evaluate the documents and proofs

submitted. The delineation team is headed by the CDT or PDT leader which is the

provincial officer of the NCIP and composed of the engineer, Chief of Party (COP)

for the surveys. The ADO is required by the IPRA to transmit the application of

CADT to other agencies - DENR and DAR. Upon transmission, the preparation for

the community groundwork begins with the approval of the Working Financial Plan

(WFP). The WFP is a detailed plan of expenses starting from the gathering of

documents to the approval of the CADT. It is accomplished per province in previous

years since each one targets one ancestral domain to be delineated in the fiscal year.

Unfortunately, according to Engr. Calata for the fiscal year 2017, there are no funding

for delineation and titling.

Furthermore, the social preparation stage starts with an end result of producing Social

Preparation Accomplishment Report (SPAR). Inside the SPAR are details of the CDT

or PDT conducting Information Education Consultation (IEC) and gathering

testimonies of elders including three-generation genealogy. There also a census of the

population of the community particularly accounting migrants or non-IPs because it

varies among ICCs whether they consider them as beneficiaries. All documents

122
gathered are validated by or conformed by the office as well as the tribal leaders as

seen in the recognition book.

After the SPAR, it will be then submitted to the Regional Review Body (RRB) to be

evaluated and reviewed. The RRB decides to approve or not the application. If

approved, the regional office will endorse it to the ADO, and if it complies with all

the requirements, ADO will issue work order for the regional office to proceed with

engineers to conduct surveys of the perimeter of the ancestral domain. However, the

ROs also need to issue notification letter for the adjacent communities in relation to

mission planning.

The technical part of the process is the reconnaissance in which the CDT or PDT,

together with geodetic engineers, visits the area, and traverses the instruments to

conduct land survey, and identify boundaries. The survey plan contains the actual

scope of CADT application in the form of maps. One CADT application covers one

survey plan. Members of the community take part by pointing out markings and

boundaries of their ancestral domain. Then, the team will prepare a technical

description of the survey and survey returns preparation to be submitted again to the

ADO. The ADO checks the survey conducted and verifies if there are no overlap of

the domain, if it is cleared it will be then endorsed back to the regional office for map

validation. In map validation, the engineers goes again to the community to consult

with their survey and if there are no errors regarding boundaries and other details. The

map will also be published in local newspapers in two consecutive weeks at the same

time it is endorsed to the DENR and DAR to check if there are no overlap or existing

123
titles in the ancestral domain surveyed. Existing land titles before the enactment of

IPRA are respected and thus, segregated from the ancestral domain.

The problem encountered by the ADO regarding the verification of overlapping titles

is when the three agencies processed the requests in a long period that there are

already private entities entering the ancestral domain. The ADO has no other choice

but to proceed with the process. The title will be published for two consecutive weeks

in newspapers for contention or protest, and the office will wait for another two weeks

if there are any. Titles without contention are submitted to ADO as well as endorsed

to the Legal Affairs Office (LAO). The review of ADO and LAO decides whether the

title is to be recommended to the concerned ethnographic commissioner for agenda

and deliberation.

The deliberation of the commission consists of three readings. In the first reading, the

provincial officer or the director will present the stages of the application including

the proofs, photos, and landmarks. If there are no further questions, the seven

commissioners will approve the ancestral domain title in the first or second reading.

However, if there are needed requirements to comply, the provincial officer gathered

and prepared it for the third and final reading. After the approval, the commission

prepares the resolution and the CADT itself. Titles are then again endorse to the

DENR, DAR, and LRA for the Certificate of Non-Overlap because titles cannot be

registered to the Registry of Deeds if there are other titled properties inside it. As

mentioned by Engr. Calata, there are many approved CADTs, but are not yet

registered. It has been evident that the commission had done their part of the process

124
through the approval of CADT but it now rests with the concerned agencies and ROD

for the certificate of non-overlap, and consequently, the registration of the CADT.

Based on the interview with Mr. Xyril Dumagan, Development Management Officer I

of the ADO, budgeting is one of the problems encountered in the registration of title.

The allocation of budget determines the overall numbers of CADT that can be

processed. It depends on how much will the Congress allocate for the provincial and

regional officers. If the budget will not be enough, not all CADT applications can be

accommodated. Sometimes, the NCIP will only prioritize the first phase of the CADT

application which is the Social Preparation Accomplishment Report (SPAR). Only the

initial collection of data can be processed and the NCIP will wait again for another

year of budgetary allocation from the government. Thus, there other stakeholders

finance the delineation titling including non-government organizations (NGOs) and

local government units (LGUs).

In relation to budget constraint, the division lacks manpower as espoused by ADO

Chief, Engineer Jeanette Manuel in the interview. The current plantilla of the office

only consists of four permanent employees while the rest are job orders with project-

based salaries. Engr. Manuel also mentioned that the division needed more engineers,

particularly geodetic engineers, which will assist in conducting survey plans and map

projection. As observed by the researchers during the visit in their office, there was a

limited number of people working around even though there are a lot of workloads

and applications to be processed. It is apparent that because of the shortage of

125
employee in the office as well as in the field, the office fall short in delivering

services and fail to meet the expectations of IPs and other stakeholders.

Apart from internal factors, external threats affect the CADT delineation process.

Peace and order becomes a concern when leftist groups, as disclosed by Mr.

Dumagan, further aggravate the delay in ancestral domain titling process through

harassment of engineers in the field. Based on the experiences of some engineers,

their security is at stake in field surveys especially in areas where these groups are

located. Engr. Manuel added that weather or climate in the area of the ancestral

domain also causes postponement of land surveying. These are some of the elements

in the process which are overlooked or have been totally failed to be recognized, but

still greatly influenced the time frame of the application.

2. Regional Office III Central Luzon

As mentioned in the preceding section, funding for CADT is done first with the

submission of the Working Financial Plan, and then requested to the central office for

planning and reflected in the budget of the agency in the General Appropriation Act.

According to the NCIP Regional Chief Administrative Officer, the length of the time

for funds varies but funding for CADT can be done within a year. The budget

allocated depends on the target set for the fiscal year. In the case of Bataan, the NCIP

Provincial Office of Bataan will target particular activities for this year and the

government will allocate corresponding fund. The same process goes to the NCIP

Provincial Office of Zambales. It is the responsibility of the agency to utilize the fund

126
and meet their target. In this matter, the researchers found a domino effect because as

the funds are delayed, so as their completion of the process.

Aside from limited funding, it was found out from the interviews that one issue that

the Regional Office faces, as the office in charge for field works, is that lack of

comprehensive fieldwork manual, lack of trained ethnographers, and social scientists.

In the data gathering method, it has been found out from the interview that the officers

in charge of data-gathering were only trained in a simple community organization.

However, the technical capability of gathering and data analysis of data are different

issues that require complex methods and trained ethnographers and social scientists.

Another issue that the Regional Office encounters is the interagencies delay. As what

have been mentioned, the NCIP along with the three agencies are bounded by JAO or

the Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order. From the interviews

conducted, it was determined that the NCIP itself can approve the CADT but still

have to wait projections from the interagencies before the actual registration. Thus,

the process, set for a specific date, will be extended by months resulting to delay.

On the other hand, the issues were not only found on the process itself, but also on the

time to time shuffling of directors that also caused delays. Sometimes, it may happen

that CADT titles are about to be issued, but due to the change of directors, these titles

may be put to pending cases again. Thereupon, the evident delay of works and the

backward development of the process is a manifestation of an internal issue that also

need to be resolved.

127
H. Inter-Agencies: DAR-DENR-LRA

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples Administrative Order No. 4 Series

of 2012 provides functions to different agencies in the delineation and recognition of

ancestral domain titles. The Section 5 of the Administrative Order identifies the

Assistors of NCIP in the delineation and recognition process as the representatives of

various departments including the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of

Environment and Natural Resources, and the Land Registration Authority. The

assistors primary function is to assist the PDT/CDT in all its responsibilities in the

delineation process.

The DAR, DENR and LRA mainly act as assisters in the common projection as

provided in the Section 5 of Rule II of the Administrative Order. Their main function

is to issue certifications stating whether or not there are areas within the ancestral

domain containing issued Certificate of Land Ownership Awards or identified to be

under the Comprehensive Agrarian Law coverage. The institutions certify the sketch

survey plans of NCIP in the ancestral domains if there are titled properties and lands

inside the approved survey maps through the issuance Certificate of Non-Overlap

before the registration of the ancestral domain.

During the interview with the representatives of DAR, DENR and LRA, it was found

out that the processes in the common projection take a long time when titles overlap

within the ancestral domain area. The Certificate of Land Ownerships Awards

recipients normally file complaints and trials upon the issuance of nullification and

128
reclaiming of land titles by DAR, DENR or LRA which inhibit and delay the issuance

of Certificate of Non-Overlap and the overall registration period.

The overlapping land titles pose a major obstacle in the delineation and recognition

process of ancestral domain titling. The land declared by DENR as a Protected Area

cannot be managed if there is a Certificate of Land Ownership recipient stating that it

is an agricultural land. Also, an agrarian reform beneficiary with Certificate of Land

Ownership Award (CLOA) will not be able to start farming if somebody else

produces a tax declaration putting the land under residential property. More

importantly, the NCIP cannot continue with the delineation process if there are still

overlapping land titles existing in the area.

129
 Chapter VII

Conclusions and Recommendations

A. Conclusions

Upon the findings and assessment of CADT delineation and recognition process of

the NCIP and the joint role of DAR-DENR-LRA, the following discusses the

conclusions of the study:

1. How effective is the CADT delineation and recognition process in the cases of

Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales?

From the data-gathering methods utilized by the researchers, it was deduced that the

CADT delineation and recognition process is ineffective. Although it shall be

recognized that the NCIP independently performs satisfactorily, the CADT

delineation and recognition process does not end on the approval from NCIP but

rather, encapsulates up to the registration of title. To further explain and strengthen

the infectivity of the process, the researchers identified the factors and bottlenecks

through answering the proceeding questions.

2. What are the factors that affect the CADT delineation and recognition process?

Several factors and elements that affect the CADT delineation and recognition

process were identified by the researchers namely: enforcement of the process, private

entities, political interference, leadership of the Aetas, and the Aeta communities’

capacity.

130
The first factor is enforcement of the CADT delineation and recognition process.

Laws and administrative orders enacted have significant impact on the process. In this

regard, Aeta Magbukon and Aeta Zambal cannot assume full claim of their inherent

rights acknowledged in the IPRA without following the formally defined and

controlled process established by the NCIP, and other concerned agencies for the

issuance of CADTs including the documents and evidences to be submitted.

Private entities are considered as one of the factors that affect the CADT delineation

and recognition process. It inhibits Indigenous Peoples in enjoying their rights to

ancestral domains as discussed in the cases of Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales.

The entrance of private individuals and overlapping titled properties further delayed

the process because of the lengthy time needed to segregate them from the ancestral

domain being applied. From low-key resettlements to massive land grabbings, the IPs

incessantly struggle through various forms of collective actions to assume their full

claim on their right to ancestral domains.

Furthermore, it is evident that political interference has also control in the CADT

delineation and recognition process. In Limay, Bataan, the lack of political support

and direct opposition of the municipal council resulted into a slow-moving pace of the

process. On the contrary, in the case of Botolan, Zambales, the political influence,

particularly the Office of the President, initiated the immediate provision of the land

title. Concerned agencies, inclination for or against specific Aeta communities, also

affect the overall speed of the process.

131
Lastly, the Aetas’ awareness of their rights. Specifically on ancestral domain, had an

effect on the process. Aetas have their own notion of territoriality which take us to an

assumption that they are unfamiliar with the legal way of land acquisition. However,

through their own formal political system and ways to deal with political matters, they

are able to be more firm of achieving social equity.

Moreover, the strong leadership and willingness of the Aeta community to participate

in the process are also motivating factors to catalyze the application process. Almost

every stage of the CADT application process involved the participation of the Aetas.

Thus, it is a key factor in the totality of the process which will either foster the prompt

delivery of service or delay the processing. In Botolan, Zambales, the Aeta

community was diligent enough to attend the meetings conducted by NCIP, comply

with their deficiencies, and participation in surveys and mapping. Strong leadership,

on the other hand, is important in standing up against threats and hindrances along the

process. The resilient headship of Apo Carling, along with the other tribal leaders,

was an advantage for the Aeta Zambal because they had a leader who ensured that

their rights will not be compromised and abused. The ability of the leader to

collaborate and seek other forms of financing is also a huge deal in hastening the

process of the CADT application process for Aetza Zambal in Botolan, Zambales.

3. What are the significant differences in the CADT application process between

Limay, Bataan and Botolan, Zambales?

Given the facts that Aeta-Magbukon formally applied for CADT on January 2004 and

have not yet been awarded as of May 2018, while Aeta-Zambal formally applied just

132
four months later than the Magbukon but have been awarded the CADT on October

2009, there are discernible characteristics between the two.

Both communities encountered problems regarding the data and evidence gathering,

although in Aeta-Zambal, it is more geographical compared to Aeta-Magbukon which

is cultural. In the case of Botolan, the topography of the place became a factor in

setting up the boundary points. Consequently, transportation and logistics to Mt.

Pinatubo slowed down the team since the area is not penetrable due to the high rise

cliff and loosen lahar near the Pinatubo area. Likewise, Aeta-Magbukon’s diverse

customs and traditions made it difficult to trace back beyond five generations in order

accomplish and strengthen the genealogy of the Aetas. The conduct of the genealogy

survey became a drawback because of the cultural taboos and forbidden practices

which prohibited them to trace the ancestry towards the earlier generations.

Significantly, Aeta-Magbukon experienced high level of politicization given the lack

of support from the municipal councils to the Indigenous Peoples as well as the

resistance of the community’s CADT application. Politics also made the application

complicated for Aeta-Zambal. However, in their case the executive branch at that time

supported them particularly in the national level. Agencies controlled by the Office of

the President made the process faster for the community. In relation, the tribal

leaders’ will and determination also attributed to the Botolan CADT application

process.

133
4. Where are the process bottlenecks? What are the reasons and situations causing

these bottlenecks?

A number of bottlenecks are found and identified by the researchers in CADT

delineation and recognition process. These bottlenecks were: (1) lack of funding, (2)

limited manpower, (3) organizational structure reshuffle, and (4) interagencies delay.

As what have been mentioned in the interviews of NCIP officers, some cases of

CADT application might have been processed immediately only if sufficient financial

resources were allocated for the project. Some cases of CADT application have

experienced delay because of unforeseen expenses given the required reviews of some

processes. It was also the case in which the topography and weather of the area

brought logistical concerns which needed additional funds.

Another bottleneck that was identified is the limited manpower. The lack of

comprehensive fieldwork manual, and the lack of trained ethnographers and social

scientists was recognized as an issue by the NCIP Regional Office. In the data-

gathering method, officers in charge of data gathering were only trained in a simple

community organization. As a result, some of the NCIP officers perform certain jobs

outside their job description. It was also observed in both the regional offices and

Ancestral Domain Office that the shortage of geodetic engineers caused the backlogs

in the survey and projection.

Reshuffling in the organizational structure delayed the process of the CADT

application. An officer, who handles an application, provides a great influence on the

134
progress of the application because they should have utmost knowledge and

experience on the specific case. However, organizational structure shuffling requires

new officer to acquire knowledge about the case. The continuum of certain CADT

application was halted due to the new set of officials in the different concerned

agencies.

Lastly, interagencies delay remains to be the top bottleneck that slows down the

CADT delineation and recognition process. It was found out that most of the

unfinished applications were already on the step of the awarding of the title.

Technically, an application that is approved for CADT in the NCIP level is not yet to

be recognized, unless the formal title will awarded after close coordination with

DENR, DAR, and LRA. Hence, the segregation of land titles among these agencies

takes years before the actual release of the CADT.

5. What are the key roles of the DENR, DAR, and LRA in the CADT registration

process? How did the government address their overlapping jurisdictions?

The three aforementioned agencies have key roles to perform in the CADT

delineation and registration process. As part of the process, the projected lands of

NCIP are submitted to the concerned departments. DENR ensured that no

government-owned reserves and other natural resources overlapped with the scope of

the CADT, while DAR segregated portions of public domain devoted to agriculture.

In return, these agencies issue a Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNO) before the

registration of the ancestral land to the LRA. It was also the LRA that assessed if

there were private titles registered inside said land. This requirement slowed down the

135
issuance of CADT considering that the CNOs are mandatory requirements for land

registration.

To address the conflicting jurisdictions, the JAO, as the binding agreement of the four

agencies, takes over. In the event that ancestral domains being measured by the NCIP

overlaps with other tenurial instruments with other agencies, the JAO assumes control

by resolving the issue on the ground level through their respective provincial offices.

If the issue still persists, the resolution will be transferred to the regional level, and

may continue until the top level. The JAO continuous as an imperative component for

land registration because it will be chaotic without guidelines handling the

overlapping jurisdictions of DENR, DAR, LRA, and NCIP.

B. Recommendations

In lieu of the study, the researchers recommend the following to the different

institutions and stakeholders involved in the ancestral domain delineation and

recognition: strengthen the enforcement and implementation of JAO, revisit the

Indigenous Peoples’ Right Act, improve the relationship and communication between

the involved agencies, collaborate with the academe and LGUs for manpower, and

dismiss any form of preferential treatment and politicization within the process.

Considering the importance of JAO to the CADT delineation and recognition process

and its binding power to all agencies concerned, stricter compliance of the

administrative order is imperative. Section 13 of the Joint Administrative Order

specified the alloted time for DENR and DAR to act on the request of the NCIP

136
regarding certificate of non-overlap. Although there are only 15 days for these

agencies to process the request, it is observed that they still fail to resolve the issue.

Thus, the researchers suggest that the NCIP should have the power to approve such

title and consider it without non-overlapping properties within it once the 15 days

time elapsed.

Next, two decades have passed since the enactment of the Indigenous Peoples’ Right

Act and there are no initiatives by neither both houses of the Congress to review the

provisions of the law. It is necessary to have the Republic Act evaluated to

accommodate with the current context of the Indigenous Peoples and advancement of

the system. To better cater and address with the needs of the IPs, the amendments

must push through regarding certain provisions of IPRA that are now obsolete.

Third, improve the relationship and communication between the involved agencies.

This recommendation aims to provide an efficient system in the process that will

expedite the necessary documents needed. It could be done through regular updates

and follow-up. Moreover, the communication channels between the heads of the

agencies should be well-defined in order to foster efficient resolution of issues.

Fourth, the limited number of manpower in the delineation and recognition process

could be resolved through the collaboration with the academe and local government

units. With the lack of social scientists and ethnographers, the researchers suggest that

the NCIP could tap and connect with universities regarding such professionals. The

LGUs, on the other hand, could assist the commission with their local assessor's office

in terms of geodetic engineers that is needed in survey plans and map projections.

137
Finally, agencies involved should discourage any form of preferential treatment and

politicization within the process. The interference of the political factors creates delay

in the processing of CADTs by hindering the Aetas to progress in their application.

Furthermore it shows the lack of will of the political bodies in helping them claim

their lands. Avoidance of such scenarios is highly recommended to uphold the value

of equity and democracy. Preferential treatment among IPs should also be avoided in

order to eliminate bias and unequal outlook towards the IPs.

C. Areas for Further Research

As discussed in the research scope and limitations, only two direct CADT delineation

and recognition process applications were assessed in the research. The study was

only limited in ancestral domains in Region III - Central Luzon. This poses a concern

on the generalizability of the findings regarding the effectiveness of the process as

this is only restricted to the two cases. That being said, the researchers suggest that it

will be beneficial to consider and study more cases as well as subjects that are situated

both inside and even outside the said region.

138
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia

1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines

Acaba, J. (2008). The Aetas' Relocation and their Struggle for Survival. Retrieved

from

http://lynchlibrary.pssc.org.ph:8081/bitstream/handle/0/3723/10_The%20Aeta

s%20Relocation%20And%20Their%20Struggle%20For%20Survival.pdf?seq

uence=1.

Anti-Racism Information Center. (2002). “Report on Burma” in Xanthaki, A. Land

Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Southeast Asia. Melbourne Journal of

International Law. Retrieved from

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2003/5.html

Anti-Racism Information Center. (2002). Report on Laos in Xanthaki, A. Land Rights

of Indigenous Peoples in Southeast Asia. Melbourne Journal of International

Law. Retrieved April 2018 from

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2003/5.html

Asian Development Bank. (2002). Indigenous peoples/ethnic minorities and poverty

reduction Philippines. Manila: ADB Publication. Retrieved August 19, 2017

139
 from https://www.adb.org/publications/indigenous-peoples-ethnic-minorities-

and-poverty-reduction-philippines.

Austria, J. (2008). Expanding the Envelope: The Convergence of Indigenous Aeta

Organization and an External Issue-Based Community Organizing Model in

Tarlac, Philippines (Master’s Thesis, University of Florida). Retrieved from

http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0022467/austria_j.pdf

Balilla, V. S., McHenry, J.A., McHenry, M.P., Parkinson, R.M, & Banal, d. (2012).

Indigenous Aeta Magbukún Self-Identity, Sociopolitical Structures, and Self-

Determination at the Local Level in the Philippines. Journal of Anthropology,

Volume 2013, Article ID 391878. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/391878

Balita. (2009). PGMA to award CADTs in Region 3. Retrieved September 16, 2017

from http://balita.ph/2009/05/26/pgma-to-award-cadts-in-region-3-

wednesday/.

Baird, I. (2013). ‘Indigenous Peoples’ and land: Comparing communal land titling

and its implications in Cambodia and Laos. Asia Pacific Viewpoint.

Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington and Wiley

Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Bandara, A. (2002). The nature of the Timuay justice and governance in Central

Mindanao, Philippines. Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières. Retrieved

140
 September 16, 2017, from http://www.europe-

solidaire.org/spip.php?article5255.

Bennagen, P. (2007). “Amending” IPRA, Negotiating Autonomy, Upholding the

Right to Self-Determination In Negotiating Autonomy: Case Studies on

Philippine Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, edited by Augusto B. Gatmaytan,

pp.179–198. Quezon City/Copenhagen: International Work Group for

Indigenous Affairs

Beaupre, J. (2015). Recognition and Enforcement of Land Rights in the Commune of

Ngozi. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth

Observation of the University of Twente.

Bhattarai, Teeka & Minority Rights Group (1999). “Forests and indigenous peoples of

Asia.” Minority Rights Group International in Xanthaki, A. Land Rights of

Indigenous Peoples in Southeast Asia. Melbourne Journal of International

Law. Retrieved April 2018 from

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2003/5.html

Bounmany, L., Phommasane, S. & Greijmans, M. . (2012). Communal land titles for

5 bamboo producing communities in Sangthong District, Vientiane Capital,

Lao PDR, Vientiane: District Land Management Authority and SNV.

141
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. In 4th (Ed.). Oxford University Press.

Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/16577475/Alan_Bryman-

Social_Research_Methods_4th_Edition-Oxford_University_Press_2012_

Cambodian Land Law 2001

Campaign For Human Rights Philippines. (2013). Harassment Against Resident-

Farmers and Aeta IP Group in Porac Pampanga. Retrieved from

http://www.chrp.org.uk/2013/harassment-against-resident-farmers-and-aeta-

ip-group-in-porac-pampanga/

Carino, J. (2012). Republic of the Philippines: Country’s Technical Note on

Indigenous Peoples Issues. pp.7-9. Quezon City.

Carino, J. & Maranan, L. (2016). Indigenous Peoples’ Initiative for Land Rights

Recognition in Asia. Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) Foundation. Chiang

Mai, Thailand: AIPP Printing Press Co. Ltd.

Carling, J., Tessier, J., Shakya, P., & Wattimena, P. (2016). Indigenous Peoples’

Initiatives for Land Rights. Retrieved from http://www.iapad.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/01/Indigenous-Peoples-Initiatives-for-Land-Rights-

Recognition-in-Asia_AIPP_FINAL_2016.pdf.

Casimir, M. (2009). Culture and Changing Environment. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=ogpzeOcQoLUC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA

142
 139&dq=ancestral%20domain%20aetas&source=bl&ots=O350wFXsCc&sig=

ntM9hNPpIhtxqypFLTOF-

mXmPdM&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ancestral%20domain

%20aetas&f=false.

Chakma, S. & Jensen, M. (2001). Behind the Bamboo Curtain: Racism in Asia.

Racism against Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com.ph/books

Clarke, G. (2001). “From Ethnocide to Ethno-development? Ethnic Minorities and

Indigenous Peoples in Southeast Asia”. Third World Quarterly, 22(3), 413-

436. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993472

Colchester, M; Sirait M. & Wijardjo B. (2003). The Application of FSC Principles 2

and 3 in Indonesia: Obstacles and Possibilities. Indonesian Forum for the

Environment. Retrieved from

https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/default/files/publication/2010/08/indonesi

aobstaclesandpossibilities03eng_1.pdf

Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of

the ILO (ILO CEACR). (1989). ILO Convention No 169, Indigenous and

Tribal Peoples. Retrieved from

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P121

00_ILO_CODE:C169

143
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (2003). General

Recommendation 23: Indigenous Peoples. Compilation of General Comments

and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies.

Retrieved from http://www.tebtebba.org/index.php/all-resources/category/24-

committee-on-the-elimination-of-racial-discrimination-

cerd?download=217:general-recommendation-no-23-indigenous-peoples

Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. California: SAGE Publications.

David, M. E. (2011). Aeta Mag-anchi’s Cultural History, Concept of Time and

Territoriality: Its Implications to Education. International Proceedings of

Economics Development and Research, 5 (2011).

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). (2013). DAR Mandate, Mission and Vision.

Retrieved from http://www.dar.gov.ph/about-us/mandate-mission-and-vision

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). (2018). DENR Mandate,

Vision and Mission. Retrieved from https://www.denr.gov.ph/about-

us/mission-vision.html

Department of Environment and Natural Resources Regional Office III (DENR RO

III). (2018). DENR Regional 3 - Central Luzon Regional Profile. Retrieved

from http://r3.denr.gov.ph/index.php/about-us/regional-profile

144
De Vera, D. (2007). Indigenous peoples in the Philippines. Presented at the RNIP

Regional Assembly. Hanoi, Vietnam. Retrieved August 19, 2017 from

http://www.iapad.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/devera_ip_phl.pdf.

De Guzman, V. (2015). Whose Land? Whose Development? Retrieved from

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/123652/whose-land-whose-development.

Einzenberger, R. (2016). Contested frontiers: Indigenous mobilization and control

over land and natural resources in Myanmar’s upland areas. ASEAS – Austrian

Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 9(1), 163-172.

Erasga, D. (2008) Ancestral Domain Claim: The Case of Indigenous Peoples in

Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).Asia-Pacific Social Science Review. Philippine

EJournals. Retrieved September 16, 2017 from

https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=5887

Executive Order No. 192 (1987)

Fajardo, R. (2007). Still strangers in their own land. Philippine Center for

Investigative Journalism. Retrieved from http://pcij.org/stories/still-strangers-

in-their-own-land/

Foppes, J. (2011). Communal land titling in Lao PDR: Status Update in 2011,

Powerpoint Presentation. Vientiane, Laos, Land Issues Working Group.

145
Gaillard, J. (2015). People’s Response to Disasters in the Philippines. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan. pp 95-105.

Gatmaytan, A. (2005). Constitutions in Conflict: Manobo Tenure as Critique of Law.

In Control and Conflict in the Uplands: Ethnic Communities, Resources, and

the State in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, edited by Filomeno V.

Aguilar Jr. and Ma. Angelina M. Uson, pp.63–96. Quezon City: Institute of

Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University.

GMA News, (2009). Aetas in Pampanga awarded first clean title of ancestral

domain. Retrieved September 16, 2017 from

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/regions/163062/aetas-in-pampanga-

awarded-first-clean-title-of-ancestral-domain/story/

Gower, G. (2015). Ethical research in indigenous contexts and the practical

Implementation of it. Edith Cowan University. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.969.9906&rep=rep1

&type=pdf

Hotel Clark Philippines. (n.d.). Aetas lead protest vs massive land grabbing. Clark,

Pampanga: Hotel Clark Philippines.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

(ICERD), (2009). Philippines Indigenous Peoples ICERD Shadow Report for

the consolidated fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and

146
 twentieth Philippine ICERD periodic reports. Retrieved from

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/PHL/INT_C

ERD_NGO_PHL_75_9922_E.pdf

International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169. (1989). C169 - Indigenous

and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). Retrieved from

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P121

00_ILO_CODE:C169o

Ironside, J. (2004). Securing Land Tenure Rights for Cambodia’s Indigenous

Communities. In Jensen, M. (2004), Land Rights: A Key Issue. International

Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Copenhagen

Jensen, M. (2004). Land Rights: A Key Issue. International Work Group for

Indigenous Affairs. Copenhagen

Keienburg, G. (2012). Blessing or Curse: The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997.

Retrieved from http://www.ipon-

philippines.info/fileadmin/user_upload/Observers/Observer_Vol.4_Nr.2/Obser

ver_Vol.4_Nr.2_ActualImpunity_16.pdf

Land Registration Authority (LRA). (2017). LRA Region 3. Retrieved from

http://www.lra.gov.ph/region-3.html

147
Land Registration Authority (LRA). (2018). LRA Basic Services. Retrieved from

http://www.lra.gov.ph/services/basic-services.html

LRA Mandate, Vision and Mission. Retrieved from

http://www.lra.gov.ph/about.html

LRA Organization. Retrieved from http://www.lra.gov.ph/organizational-

chart.html

Laungaramsri, P. (2000). “‘The Ambiguity of “Watershed”: The Politics of People

and Conservation in Northern Thailand — A Case Study of the Chom Thong

Conflict.” In edition of Colchester, M & Erni, C. (2002). Indigenous Peoples

and Protected Areas in South and Southeast Asia. Retrieved April 2018 from

https://www.academia.edu/8659089/The_Ambiguity_of_Watershed?auto=do

wnload

Law on Land of 1993 of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Retrieved from

http://www.vietnamlaws.com/freelaws/Lw13na26Nov03Land[X2865].pdf

Li, T. (2002). Engaging Simplification: Community-Based Resource Management,

Market Processes and State Agendas in Upland Southeast Asia. World

Development 30 (2).

Manaligod R. (1990). Struggle against development aggression: Tribal Filipinos and

ancestral domain. Quezon City: TABAK. Retrieved August 23, 2017 from

148
 http://therandallgroup.co/struggle_against_development_aggression_tribal_fili

pinos_ancestral_domain_.pdf

Masalin, S. (2014). Country Studies: Malaysia. In Matibag, J. (2014). Indigenous

Peoples and National Human Rights Institution in Asia. Asia Indigenous

Peoples Pact (AIPP) Foundation. Chiang Mai, Thailand: AIPP Printing Press

Co. Ltd.

McHenry, Mark P., Julia Anwar-McHenry, Vincent S. Balilla and Riva Marris

Parkinson. (2013). The Indigenous Aetas of Bataan, Philippines:

Extraordinary genetic origins, modern history and land rights. Singapore

Journal of Tropical Geography, 34 (2013) 292–306. DOI: 10.1111/sjtg.12038.

Montillo-Burton, E. and Echavez, C. (2011). Exclusion of and Discrimination against

the Indigenous Communities: Case Study of the Philippines. Retrieved from:

http://www.dalitstudies.org.in/uploads/publication/1473145280.pdf

Morella, C. (2015). Philippines’ Aeta people ‘beggars’ in their own land. Retrieved

from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-philippines-aeta-people-beggars.html.

National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP). (2011). Organizational

Performance Indicator Framework. Retrieved from

http://www.ncip.gov.ph/index.php/transparency

149
 (2017). Citizen’s Charter. Retrieved from

http://www.ncip.gov.ph/index.php/agency-profile/citizen-s-charter

(2017). NCIP Vision, Mission, and Mandate. Retrieved from

http://www.ncip.gov.ph/index.php/agency-profile/vision-mission-and-mandate

(2017). NCIP Organizational Structure. Retrieved from

http://www.ncip.gov.ph/index.php/agency-profile/organization/organizational-

chart

NCIP Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2012, The Revised Guidelines on Free

and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) and Related Processes of 2012

NCIP Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 2012, Revised Omnibus Rules on

Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Domains and Lands of 2012

NCIP Bataan. (2011). CADT Application of the Ayta Magbukon ICC/IPs of Limay,

Bataan [Recognition Book]. San Fernando: NCIP Regional Office III Central

Luzon.

NCIP Zambales. (2008). Ayta Ancestral Domain of Belbel, Burgos, Moraza, Villar

[Recognition Book]. San Fernando: NCIP Regional Office III Central Luzon.

150
Navales, R. (2015). Aetas to file raps vs CDC execs. Retrieved from

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/local-news/2015/08/11/aetas-file-raps-

vs-cdc-execs-424011.

National Science Foundation. (n.d.). An Overview of Quantitative and Qualitative

Data Collection Methods. Retrieved from:

https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02057/nsf02057_4.pdf

Novellino, D. (2000). Forest Conservation in Palawan. Philippine Studies, 48.

Retrieved from

http://www.philippinestudies.net/files/journals/1/articles/1673/public/1673-

1772-1-PB.pdf

Olliver-Hoyo, M. & Allen, D. (2006). The Use of Triangulation Methods in

Qualitative Educational Research. pp 42-47. Journal of College of Science

Teaching.

Onwuegbuzie, A. et al. (2009). A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and

Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research. Retrieved from

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/160940690900800301

Orejas, T. (2011). Pinatubo Aetas resist mining project. Retrieved from

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/783/pinatubo-aetas-resist-mining-project.

151
Osman, S. (2000). Globalization and Democratization: The Response of the

Indigenous Peoples of Sarawak. Third World Quarterly. Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3993551?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Padilla, S. (2008). Indigenous Peoples, Settlers and the Philippine Ancestral Domain

Land Titling Program. In Frontier Encounters: Indigenous Communities and

Settlers in Asia and Latin America, edited by Danilo Geiger, pp.449–481.

Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs

Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). (2015). Municipality of Botolan. Retrieved

from https://psa.gov.ph/population-and-housing

Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). (2015). Municipality of Limay. Retrieved from

https://psa.gov.ph/population-and-housing

Pinkaew, E. (2014). Country Studies: Thailand. In Matibag, J. (2014). Indigenous

Peoples and National Human Rights Institution in Asia. Asia Indigenous

Peoples Pact (AIPP) Foundation. Chiang Mai, Thailand: AIPP Printing Press

Co. Ltd.

PREDA Foundation Inc. (2015). Aetas lament: We’re aliens in our own land.

Retrieved from http://www.preda.org/newsitems/aetas-lament-were-aliens-in-

our-own-land/.

152
Prill-Brett, J. (1994). Indigenous Land Rights and Legal Pluralism among Philippine

Highlanders. Law and Society Review. Retrieved from

http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/ragh/ccs/posters/Done/2006-13/June%20Prill-Brett-

Law&.pdf.

Ragazzi, M. (1997). The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes. Oxford

Monographs in International Law. Retrieved from

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298700.

001.0001/acprof-9780198298700 /

Republic Act No. 7924: Mining Act of 1995

Republic Act No. 8371: Indigenous Peoples Right Act (IPRA) of 1997.

Royal Decree No NS/RKM/0801/14 or known as the Cambodian Land Law. (2001).

Unofficial English translation prepared by the Ministry of Land Management,

Urban Planning and Construction, Cambodia. Retrieved from

http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/cam27478.doc

Rutten, R. (2015). Indigenous People and Contested Access to Land in the Philippines

and Indonesia. Kasarinlan, 30. Retrieved from

http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/kasarinlan/article/download/5692/5101

153
Sabah Malaysia Land Ordinance. (1930). Retrieved from

http://ww2.sabah.gov.my/phb/wp-

content/uploads/2011/05/LandOrdinance.pdf

Salita, R. (2011). Walang Daang Matuwid sa Apeco. Retrieved from

https://aurorafreeport.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/the-plight-of-the-aetas/.

Sarawak Malaysia Land Code. (1958). Retrieved from

https://pengayau.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/sarawak-land-code-chapter-81-

tmp.pdf

Scott, J. C. (2009). The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland

Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Shuttleworth, M. (2009). Internal Validity. Retrieved from https://explorable.com /

internal-validity

Szczepanski, K. (2002). Land Policy and ADAT Law in Indonesia’s Forests. Pacific

Rim Law and Policy Journal. Retrieved from

https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-

law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/752/11PacRimLPolyJ231.pdf?sequence=1

Talabis, E. (2017). Land Titling in the Philippines: Addressing Challenges through a

Reform-Oriented Framework. Retrieved from

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Dn66-

154
 llcYTQJ:https://www.conftool.com/landandpoverty2017/index.php/Talabis-

526-526.docx%3Fpage%3DdownloadPaper%26filename%3DTalabis-526-

526.docx%26form_id%3D526+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

Teves, A. (2004). The Aetas Land and Life. Retrieved from

https://www.scribd.com/document/319402543/6084039-The-Aetas-Land-and-

Life-edited-by-Aurea-G-Miclat-Teves-pdf.

Tindowen, D. (2016). The Economic Life of the Aetas of Northern Philippines.

Retrieved August 19, 2017 from: http://jhss-khazar.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/11/son.7.Phillippines._1_1.pdf.

Trochim, W. (2006). External Validity. Retrieved from

https://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/external.php

United Nations. (2001). Implementation of the programme of activities of the

International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People. Retrieved April 2018

from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a56206.pdf

United Nations Center on Transnational Corporations. (1994). Transnational

investments and operations on the lands of indigenous peoples: report of the

Centre on Transnational Corporations submitted pursuant to Sub-Commission

resolution 1990/26.. Retrieved from

http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f4450.html

155
United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UN CERD).

(2003). Summary Record of the First Part of the 1481st Meeting: China,

Vietnam. International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial

Discrimination. Retrieved April 2018 from

http://www.bayefsky.com/summary/vietnam_cerd_c_sr.14812001.php

UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3.

Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36c0.html

UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 2 October 2007,

A/RES/61/295. Retrieved from

http://www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html

UN General Assembly, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 12 July 1993,

A/CONF.157/23. Retrieved from

http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39ec.html

United Nations Treaty Collection. (n.d.). International Convention on the Elimination

of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Retrieved April 2018 from

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-

2&chapter=4&lang=en

156
United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN ICCPR).

(2002). Considerations of reports submitted by States Parties under Article 40

of the Covenant. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee:

Viet Nam. Retrieved April 2018 from

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbo

lno=CCPR/CO/75/VNM&Lang=En

Valenzuela D. & Shirvastrava P. (n.d.). Interview as a Method for Qualitative

Research. Retrieved from:

http://www.public.asu.edu/~kroel/www500/Interview%20Fri.pdf

Vinding, D. et al. (2003). The Indigenous World 2002-2003. International Work

Group for Indigenous Affairs. Retrieved from

https://www.iwgia.org/images/publications/IW_2003.pdf

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory, Foundations, Development,

Applications. New York: George Braziller, Inc.

Wattimena-Shirane, P. (2014). Country Studies: Indonesia. In Matibag, J. (2014).

Indigenous Peoples and National Human Rights Institution in Asia. Asia

Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) Foundation. Chiang Mai, Thailand: AIPP

Printing Press Co. Ltd.

Wilkinson, S. (2004). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, Chapter 10.

Retrieved from: https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=-

YvRs1O87KkC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=focus+group+research+is+%E

157
 2%80%9Ca+way+of+collecting+qualitative+data,+which%E2%80%94essenti

ally%E2%80%94+involves+engaging+a+small+number+of+people+in+an+in

formal+group+discussion+(or+discussions),+%E2%80%98focused%E2%80

%99+around+a+particular+topic+or+set+of+issues%E2%80%9D+(Wilkinson

,+2004)&source=bl&ots=bV08gJfgYo&sig=uP4no6-Qbq-

AB33jRuzWRKFZ_RY&hl=fil&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjosvqHr_vaAhXDq5

QKHdZYBTcQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q&f=false

Xanthaki, A. Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Southeast Asia. Melbourne

Journal of International Law. Retrieved April 2018 from

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2003/5.html

158
 APPENDIX A

NCIP Organizational Structure (2017)

Source: National Commission on on Indigenous People

159
 APPENDIX B

NCIP RO III Organizational Structure (2017)

Source: National Commission on on Indigenous People

160
 APPENDIX C
Data Gathering Gantt Chart

161
 APPENDIX D
Interview Guide

Interview Guide - NCIP Main Office - Ancestral Domain Officer

Interviewee: ______________________ Interviewer: _______________________

Location/Address: __________________ Time Started: _____________________

Date: ___________________________ Time Ended: ________________________

Greetings!

We are students from the University of the Philippines - National College of Public

Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG). We are currently taking up PA 199.2

(Research Methods in Public Administration II) under the supervision of Dr. Ebinezer

Florano. As part of our course requirements, we are required to conduct a study and

write a research paper. This interview aims to gather information about the roles of

the NCIP particularly the Ancestral Domain Office in the ancestral domain titling

process and as a promoter of rights of the Indigenous Peoples.

Kami ay mga mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Diliman – Pambansang

Dalubhasaan ng Pamamahalang Pambayan (UP NCPAG). Kami ay kasalukuyang

kumukuha ng kursong PA 199.2 (Research Methods in Public Administration) sa

ilalim ni Dr. Ebinezer Florano. Bilang alinsunod sa mga layunin ng kurso,

kinakailangan naming magsagawa ng pag-aaral at sumulat ng isang papel ukol sa

ancestral domain titling.

Ang panayam na ito ito ay naglalayong makapangalap ng impormasyon hinggil sa

pagproseso at pag-isyu ng titulo para sa katutubong lupa sa inyong lugar. Makakaasa

162
kayo na ang mga makakalap na datos ay mananatiling confidential at gagamitin

lamang para sa mga pang-akademikong gawain.

1. What division is responsible for the issuance of ancestral domain titles? What

are its key functions?

2. What are the basic requirements to apply for Certificate of Ancestral Domain

Titles?

3. What is the procedure followed by NCIP in processing ancestral domain

titles?

4. What are the possible internal and external factors that affect the processing of

ancestral domain titles?

5. What are the bottlenecks present in the current procedure? What are your

actions to prevent/resolve it?

6. What are the key changes integrated which improved the overall process of

issuance of CADTs?

7. What other agencies are involved in the processing of CADT and their

corresponding influence/impact in the issuance?

8. What are the area/s which manifest high-level of compliance with regards to

the procedure you identified?

9. What are the areas which manifest low-level of compliance with regards to the

procedure you identified?

10. What are the similarities/differences between the two areas?

11. What are the possible factors which cause the difference between the two

areas in terms of their level of compliance? Cite concrete scenarios.

163
12. How do you plan to lessen the differences between the two areas and foster a

more client-friendly approach to maintain the high-level of compliance of the

area identified and improve the compliance of the other?

13. What are the areas of improvement in your division/process of issuance itself

which will help facilitate faster issuance of CADTs?

164
 APPENDIX E
Interview Guide

Interview Guide - NCIP Regional Office III- Engineer

Interviewee: _________________________ Interviewer: _____________________

Location/Address: __________________ Time Started: _____________________

Date: ___________________________ Time Ended: ________________________

Greetings!

We are students from the University of the Philippines - National College of Public

Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG). We are currently taking up PA 199.2

(Research Methods in Public Administration II) under the supervision of Dr. Ebinezer

Florano. As part of our course requirements, we are required to conduct a study and

write a research paper. This interview aims to gather information about the roles of

the NCIP Regional Office III in the ancestral domain titling process and as a

promoter of rights of the Indigenous Peoples.

Kami ay mga mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Diliman – Pambansang

Dalubhasaan ng Pamamahalang Pambayan (UP NCPAG). Kami ay kasalukuyang

kumukuha ng kursong PA 199.2 (Research Methods in Public Administration) sa

ilalim ni Dr. Ebinezer Florano. Bilang alinsunod sa mga layunin ng kurso,

kinakailangan naming magsagawa ng pag-aaral at sumulat ng isang papel ukol sa

ancestral domain titling.

Ang panayam na ito ito ay naglalayong makapangalap ng impormasyon hinggil sa

pagproseso at pag-isyu ng titulo para sa katutubong lupa sa inyong lugar. Makakaasa

165
kayo na ang mga makakalap na datos ay mananatiling confidential at gagamitin

lamang para sa mga pang-akademikong gawain.

1. What is your role in the CADT process?

2. How do you conduct your role?

3. How much financial resources w3ere allocated in Zambales and Bataan?

4. How do IP communities cooperate during surveys/process?

5. How long are the actual surveys? What are the most time consuming in the

process?

6. Based on the claim book, Aeta-Magbukon petitioned in 2008 to continue their

suspended CADT Application. What is the reason behind this suspension?

7. Are there any anthropological issues? How o you resolve these?

8. How do you cooperate with DENR, LRA & DAR in terms of surveying?

9. Regarding the partner agencies, what stages in the process are they involved?

10. What are the bottlenecks that you encounter as an engineer in the CADT

process?

11. What caused the fast processing process in Zambales?

12. What caused the delay of processing in Bataan?

13. Compare your experiences in the process in Bataan vs Zambales.

14. In the span of the 4 year process in Zambales, do you think this is efficient?

What about in Bataan? Why?

166
 APPENDIX F
Interview Guide

Interview Guide - NCIP Regional Office III- Chief Administrative Officer

Interviewee: _____________________Interviewer: _________________________

Location/Address: ________________Time Started: ________________________

Date: ___________________________ Time Ended: ________________________

Greetings!

We are students from the University of the Philippines - National College of Public

Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG). We are currently taking up PA 199.2

(Research Methods in Public Administration II) under the supervision of Dr. Ebinezer

Florano. As part of our course requirements, we are required to conduct a study and

write a research paper. This interview aims to gather information about the roles of

the NCIP Regional Office III in the ancestral domain titling process and as a

promoter of rights of the Indigenous Peoples.

Kami ay mga mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Diliman – Pambansang

Dalubhasaan ng Pamamahalang Pambayan (UP NCPAG). Kami ay kasalukuyang

kumukuha ng kursong PA 199.2 (Research Methods in Public Administration) sa

ilalim ni Dr. Ebinezer Florano. Bilang alinsunod sa mga layunin ng kurso,

kinakailangan naming magsagawa ng pag-aaral at sumulat ng isang papel ukol sa

ancestral domain titling.

Ang panayam na ito ito ay naglalayong makapangalap ng impormasyon hinggil sa

pagproseso at pag-isyu ng titulo para sa katutubong lupa sa inyong lugar. Makakaasa

167
kayo na ang mga makakalap na datos ay mananatiling confidential at gagamitin

lamang para sa mga pang-akademikong gawain.

1. What is your role/function as the chief administrative officer?

2. What is your jurisdiction over ancestral domains and your corresponding

mandate?

3. What are the limitations or exceptions to your operational jurisdiction? Please

provide context: laws? Joint administrative order?

4. NCIP is responsible for the issuance of Certificate of Ancestral Domains Title

but JAO states that these government institutions also have vital roles in the

process. What is your role in the processing of CADT based on JAO?

5. How long does it take you to verify if there are existing land titles within the

jurisdiction of ancestral domain in Limay, Bataan? In Botolan, Zambales?

6. According to JAO, when an agency finds overlapping areas, these agencies

have to submit an endorsement or certification to NCIP, what are the details

contained in that document?

7. How do you address such potential conflict? How long does it usually take to

resolve the issue?

8. Do you collaborate with the other three agencies to seek a solution? How?

9. Do you think JAO is necessary?

168
 APPENDIX G
Group Discussion

GD Guide - Aeta Community

Facilitator: __________________ Number of Participants: ___________________

Location/Address: _______________ Time Started: ________________________

Date: ___________________________ Time Ended: ________________________

Greetings!

We are students from the University of the Philippines - National College of Public

Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG). We are currently taking up PA 199.2

(Research Methods in Public Administration II) under the supervision of Dr. Ebinezer

Florano. As part of our course requirements, we are required to conduct a study and

write a research paper. This focus group discussion aims to gather information about

the CADT delineation and recognition process of the NCIP.

Kami ay mga mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Diliman – Pambansang

Dalubhasaan ng Pamamahalang Pambayan (UP NCPAG). Kami ay kasalukuyang

kumukuha ng kursong PA 199.2 (Research Methods in Public Administration) sa

ilalim ni Dr. Ebinezer Florano. Bilang alinsunod sa mga layunin ng kurso,

kinakailangan naming magsagawa ng pag-aaral at sumulat ng isang papel ukol sa

ancestral domain titling.

Ang ginabayang talakayang ito ay naglalayong makapangalap ng impormasyon

hinggil sa pagproseso at pag-isyu ng titulo para sa katutubong lupa sa inyong lugar.

169
Makakaasa kayo na ang mga makakalap na datos ay mananatiling confidential at

gagamitin lamang para sa mga pang-akademikong gawain.

1. When was the first time your community applied for the CADT?

2. How long does your application take?

3. Is the process and requirements set by the NCIP clear and well-stated? Are

there any problem your community encountered in acquiring the needed

document?

4. What stage in the process takes too long?

5. Does the process exceeds the maximum time for it to be done?

6. What can you say about the delivery of service of the NCIP? the personnel and

staff?

7. What are your other observations and comments in your application of

CADT?

8. What are your recommendations/ suggestions to the NCIP?

170
 APPENDIX H
NCIP Main Office Interview Transcription

FEBRUARY 5, 2018
Quezon City
Ancestral Domain Office
Xyril Shane Dumangeng (Development Management Officer 1)
Engineer Shelly S. Calata (Engineer III)
Engineer Jeanettev D. Manuel (Ancestral Domain Office Chief)
_____________________________________________________________________

Interviewees

• P1: Xyril Shane Dumangeng (Development Management Officer 1)

• P2: Shelly S. Calata (Engineer III)
• P3: Engineer Jeanettev D. Manuel (Ancestral Domain Office Chief)

P1: Ayan yung approved CADTS. Bahala na kayo magkwan. Nandyan yung Region
3. Nandyan yung buong Philippines.

Bigyan ko kayong form regarding dito sa number 2 pero mamaya na lang. Itong
division ito yung Recognition Division. Dalawa kasi yung division ng Ancestral
Domain Office. Yung Resource Management Division, yun yung in-charge dun sa
mga matters regarding RHDPP*. Alam nyo yung RHDPP?*. Ancestral Domain
Sustainable and Development Land. Tsaka yun din yung in-charge sa mga PIC or
Safety Issuances. PIC yung PIC kasi yun yung kinukuha ng projects within ancestral
domain. ‘Yun yung process na gagawin para makakuha ng consent o makakuha ng
certification.

Dito naman eto yung Recognition Division. Halos technical ito regarding CADTS.
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title or Certificate of Ancestral Land Title. So 2
yung titulong iniissue dito yung CADT tsaka CALT. So dito yung nagveverify sam ga
survey plan na sinusubmit ng mga field offices natin so bago maapprove ang survey
pla, iveverify muna rito. Tsaka kung meron mang corrections or observations,
ibabalik muna dun para iayos.

Tei: Ano po yung laman ng survey plan?

P1: ‘Yun yung mapa ng CADT application so ayun na yung finish product or after
delineation after survey ‘yun yung survey plan. Map mismo ‘yun.

171
Tei: ng mga applications or parang summary s’ya?

P1: Hinde. Isang application, isang survey plan. Isang CADT, isang survey plan.
Pakita ko yung sample. Ito yung sample ng survey plan na sinasabi ko

Kianna: Isa palang po tong title?

P1: Isang title to. Isang title, isang survey plan. So ito hindi pa approve ito. Dito kasi
ito yung office ito yung division na nagaapprove ng survey plan. So ito kailangan pa
na, dito kase, tapos na yung community validation. Bago nila itayaas dito. S’ya po
yung division chief namin. Si?*

P1: Pagkat bago itaas dito sa central office, kailangang ipavalidate dun sa community
mismo. Dun sa nagmamay-ari ng ancestral domain. So ichecheck nila to. Pepresenta
dun sa community tapos kung okay lahat ng boundaries tsaka na lang nila pipirmahan
kung mag-akma. So ito rin ipublish nila. Ipupublish sa any local newspaper doon sa
area para makita kung may pagprotest of may against sa boundaries. So, after nun,
itataas dun pipirmahan muna ng regional director. For example, kung region 3, si Dir.
Daquiojag. Tapos iveverify, ito po yung signatory dito. Ito yung division chief tsaka
yung Director sa Ancestral Domains Office. So, kung napiramhan ito, ibig sabihin
approved na tong survey plans.

Kianna: Ano na po yung next step kapag naapprove na po yung survey plan? ‘Pag
okay na po yung boundaries?

P1: Kung okay na yung boundaries, tapos ang next na gagawin isusubmit dun sa
DENR, DAR, and LRA for projection. Kasi kahit approved na itong survey pln, hindi
pa registered sa ROD or Registry of Deeds. Meron kasing Joint Agreement na lahat
ng mga survey plan o title na maregister sa ROD, kailangan dadaan sa LRA, DAR,
and DENR para iproject nila kung may pumasok na title o dati ng may titulo sa loob
ng ancestral domain. Kasi ‘pag may dati ng may titulo prior yung IPRA, kailangang
irespeto natin ‘yun. Respeto kasi wala pa yung law, wala pa yung batas. Meron na
‘yun so kailangang irespeto ‘yun so isesegregate natin kung projected ng DAR or
DENR na nandun.

Kianna: Sir ibig sabihin po magcecreate kayo ng bagong survey plan kasi mag-
iisolate kayo?

P1: Hindi naman. I-aamend nila yung technical description. So, after segregation,
kahit approved pa rito sa NCIP, after segregation ibabalik nila dito para for
segregation. Pero actually ang nagsesegregate dun sa mga field offices natin. Tapos
after segregation ibalik ulit dun sa kanila para iproject kung meron pa o wala na.
Ayun so kung okay na sa DENR, DAR, and LRA, meron yung iniissue nula na

172
certificate. Certificate of Non-overlap. ‘Yun yung ipapakita mo run sa ROD na okay
na para iregister nila. So, ano pala yung course n’yo?

In Chorus: Public Ad po.

P1: Ay, Public Ad! Haha. Kaya pala eh, ah okay. Tapos ano pa, ano pang kailangan
nyong malaman?

P1: Yung mga basic requirements. Meron tayong form na pinipirmahan. I mean
finifill-upan ng mga applicants. Teka pakita ko yung forms. Ito yung forms kung nag-
aapply ka ng CADT. Meron yung direct applicant, meron yung conversion. Yung
conversion na sinasabi for example kung ancestral domain na dati nang mayroong
inissue ng DENR. Kasi dati walang NCIP ano, so ang humahawak ng mga matters
regarding ancestral domain at IPs ay DENR dati. Pero nung nacreate na yung, ay yung
sa DENR pa, CADC or Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim. ‘Yun yung dat so
kung meron ng dating CADC yung ancestral domain at kung gusto nilang ipa-CADT,
kung gusto nilang iconcert sa CADT, pwede. Iba yung form. Meron conversion,
merong direct application. So ito yung direct form ng direct application. Iba yung
form natin sa CALT, iba rin form sa CADT. Ang mga sinusubmit naman na mga
bashc proof; history, meron dun sa guidelines natin. Yung mga secondary data talaga,
history ng ancestral domain and mga testimonies. ‘Yun yung isang, ano pa? Di nyo
kailangan to?

Tei: Pwede pong hingin?

P1: Oo sige. Para at least, maging part of the ano. Meron tayong procedures. Ito yung
guidelines namin na narevise nung 2012 kasi may mga guidelines na dati pero ito
yung 3rd revision na yata. 2012 yung katest ito yung Omnibus. ‘Yun yung finofollow
naming pricedures, nandito lahat. Ang pinakaproblema kasi namin dito sa processing
ng ancestral domain is minsan budget. Mahirap kung walang budget. Meron din yung
iba kasi meron yung ngayon problema is yung registration ng title. Mahirap kasi di ba
sinabi ko kanina bago maregister dadaan pa sa ibang agencies. ‘Yun yung isa sa
registration tsaka yung security doon sa field kasi meron ng mga nangyari na
experience ng mga engineers natin sa field na oarang kinuha ng mga leftists during
delineation. ‘Yun yung mga problema naman na halos nagpapadelay dun sa pricessing
ang ancestrak domain. Peace and order dun sa area tsaka budget. Kahit may budget,
kulang so…

Tei: Saan po ba inaallot yung budget?

P1: Actually, yung budget, ang first yubg target is yubg galing sa provincial office so
sila magtatarget kung anong CADT yung pwedeng maiprocess for the year. So ang
problema pagkapunta sa region dahil yung region pupunta rito, doon na sa Confress
kung magkano ang iallot nilang pondo. ‘Yun yung ibubudget natin para sa target ng

173
mga applications sa CADT. Kung may kulang, meron talagang di maaccomodate.
Tsaka meron minsan ang target minsan hindi buong target matatapos. Meron lang
yung SPAR. Yung SPAR ayun yung first phase ng CADT. Ang gagawin lang dun
IEC, yung mga ‘yun. Collection of data, wala pa yung survey. Minsan kasi inaallot
natin yung budget na kwan so ayun maghihintay ka na naman for another, anither
year, another udget. ‘Yun yung kadalasan.

Kianna: Sir, meron po bang influence yung private companies or entities na merong
ibterest dun sa oarang sinusurvey na areas? Meron ba kayong cases na parang na-
influence yung process n’yo?

P1: So far, wala naman. Wala pa namang nag-iinfluence. Meron lang yung mga nag-
oopoose na bakit daw sakop daw ng ancestral domain ‘yun. Meron lang yung ganun
oero nasosolve naman eh.

Tei: Ano po yung ginagawa n’yo g resolution?

P1: Ganun? Mostl dun na sa field eh. Hindi na tumataas samin. Parang finufurnish
lang kami. Sinosolve na lang dun. Pero wala pang nangyayari na yung big companies
na nag-ooppose sa atin, wala pa naman. Halos naman na nagooppose ay adjacent
ADs. May overlappings dun sa boundary so sila-sila na rin ang nag-uusap through
customary way of settlement. So, mag-uusap sila. Minsan o sige kung iverlapping,
sige lagay natin itong communal. Ibig sabihin, pwedeng gamitin ito, pwedeng gamitin
itong ancestram domain. May mga ganung cases. Meron ding nag-ooppose na
individual na hindi nila naiintindihan na pwedeng isegregate. Kung may title naman
kasi yung kupin mo prior to IPRA or approved survey plan prior to IPRA,
marerespeto naman yung lup mo. Ganun so regarding ‘pag big companies, wala pa
naman.

Isa lang yata yung ecozone na ginagawa sa Aurora. Pero ngayon tinutuloy* naman eh.
Eventually, nagguve-uo, tinuloy yung delineation ng ancestral domain.

Kianna: Sir, how about yung internal factors. For example, sa office n’yo, kulang po
ban g man power or resources? Ano po ba yung naeencoubter nyong problems?

P1: Hmm. Totoo ‘yan dahil nga actually kulang nga sa field. Sa field naman…

Tei sumingit: Ay sir, bago n’yo po sagutin, pwedeng iclarify po muna yung mga work
differences dito sa main office vs. sa provincial.

P1: Yung mga provincial offices kasi sila talaga yung direct na as regard to CADT
delineationx Sila dun yung mag-delineate. Meron yung for example, COP, Chief of
Party, naggaling sa kanila ‘yun. So yung provincial officer s’ya yung PDT leader.
Yung provincial officer mismo PDT (Provincial Delineation Team Leader). So yung

174
PDT is composed of provincial officer, the engineer, COP for the survet. ‘yun tsaka
merong mga members dun na mabibigyan ng work order. Silang magprocess mismo.
Ang regional office after na matapos nila yung process dun sa provincial, itaatas sa
regional office for review ng CADTS. So merong members, ang tawag dun ang
magreview ng claimbook; claimbook ang tawag natin dun sa ganito. Claimbook or
recognition book, ‘yan yung complete na documents ng CADT. Meron sa regional
office yung RRB (Regional Review Body) na sila mag-evaluate doon sa ginawa ng
provincial office. Ang members sa RRB is the technical management division chief,
regional engineer at tsaka yung legal officer nila. So after mareview ng RRB, endorse
bila sa regional director. And then kung okay na sa regional director, tsaka n’ya
iendorse dito sa office. Dito naman meron ding magrereview. Itong division,
Recognition Division, doon sa recognition book na isusubmit. Hindi lang yung
recognition book pati na yung survey plan. Ayun so step-by-step yung review n’ya.
Okay na?

P1: Ah yung internal factor sa delay n’ya? Bakit nadedelay?

Kianna: Or ano pa yung problems n’yo within the office, within the commission
itself?

P1: Dito naman, kung dito sa Central Office. Yung sa, actually kulang yung engineers
namin dito sa Central Office. Sa dami-daming application, whole nation, dito kasi
mag-veverify sa mga survey plan. Kung wala ng job orders, kululangun talaga. ‘Yun
yung man powers. Sa regional office naman, ganun din kasi ang magsusurvey kasi
‘pag maraming application, kukulangin na naman. Manpower takaga ang kulang tsaka
budget.

Kianna: Yung sa bottlenecks naman po ng procedures n’yo, san po kayo

pinakanagtatagal na part? Dun sa mismong procedure ng pagpoprocess po.

Tei: Bakit hindi po maissue-issue yung ibang CADTs?

Kianna: ‘Yun po ba dahil may ibang departments nga pong involved? Or meron pos a
NCIP mismong nagtatagal kayong part?

P1: Hindi naman. Actually, after maapprove yung CADT, ‘yun hindi kaagad maissue
kasi meron yung kailangan maiproject dun sa DAR, DENR, at LRA. Ichecheck pa
nila kung may judicial titles na inissue ng LRA or may mga inissue na ng DENR.
Doon tatagal kasi sila ipoproject nila dun sa other agencies. Pero as of now, may
usapan ang apat na agencies na on-going pa yung MOA ata. On-going yung usapan
regarding sa mga ganung problems.

175
Kianna: Dun naman pos a oagsecure ng mga documents sa mga nag-aapply po? Wala
naman po kayong problems na pabalik-balik sila kasi kulang yung requirements?
Hindi po ba sila nagtatagal sa ganun?

P1: Ay sa provincial office na ‘yun. Kasi ang submission ng application is at the

provincial office.

Kianna: So yung NCIP na po yung magtataas sa inyo? Hindi na po yung applicants

ang puounta sa office n’yo?

P1: Dito kasi after maprocess na yung SPAR. Yung Social Preparation
Accomplishment Report, tsaka na kang kami magissue ng work orders. Dun kasi yung
kwan. Dito naman, hindi kasi pabalik-balik dito yung kwan kasi dun pa yung process
nila.

Tei: Aside po sa ano, sa sinabi n’yo kanina na mga agencues na nagpapatagal na

nagcacause ng bottlenecks ano pa po yung…

P1: Nagpapatagal sa issuance ng CADT. Wala naman. Kasi ‘yun talaga yung
kailangan eh. Certificate of Non-overlap. Ayun talaga yung hinihintay namin kasi oag
naapprove na kasi rito, doon na kasi.

Kianna: Kasi po ‘pag sa news po, ang dating po kasi parang NCIP yung
nagmumukhang nagdedelay po, safe po bang sabihin natin na sa NCIP po mabilis
naman po yung process. ‘Yun lang pong involvement ng ibang agencies yung
nagpapatagal?

P1: Ahh hinde. Ganito. Ang ipoprocess namin dito yung CADT, ano? So after na
maaprubahan ng commission, hindi pa title ‘yun. Hindi pa registered yung tile. Baka
ang sinasabi n’yo ay yung registration ng title. Yung CADT hindi pa naregister ‘yun
unless maisubmit sa ROD. Isubmit mo dun sa Register of Deeds para lagyan ng
number ayun. Kasi dito inaaprubahan nila yung CADT application pero iba yung
registration n’ya. So ang hinahanap naman kasi ay yung registered title.

Kianna: Dun kang po s’ya nagiging title kapag nasa ROD na po s’ya?

P1: Kapag registered na. Kasi for example sam ga private titles, ang hinahanap nila ay
yung mga registered na titles. Dito meron tayong CADT number doon meron sila
registration number. Magkaiba. Teka, nakita n’yo yung sample doon? Yung
nakaattach, ‘yun yung sample ng title ‘yun. Yung pina-enlarge na title. Ano pang mga
tanong n’yo?

Kianna: Meron po bang areas na mas marami kayong narerelease na title? Prang
ganun po, meron po yung namomroblema sila kasi maraming nag-oiverlap?

176
P1: Meron. Hindi pare-pareho yung issues sa mga regions.

Kianna: Ang focus oo kasi namin ay region 3. Tapos nakapag-identify po kami ng

areas sa Bataan tsaka sa Pampanga. Parang icocompare p namin yung Hermosa,
Bataan and Porac, Pampanga. Meron po ba kayong data tungkol sa dalawang ‘yun?
Na pwede pong gamiting point of comparison?

*shifted talking to colleagues using native language*

P1: Itong dalawa. Hermosa tsaka Porac, meron ng CADT. Itong Hermosa, sabi n’ya
registered na raw. Ibig sabihin, okay na. Registered na. Itong Porac, hindi pa
registered so may mga problema pa n kailangan png ayusin sa ground. Baka merong
mga titled lots doon na kailangang isegregate mga ganung issues.

Tei: Saan po ba namin malalaman? Sa regional office po ba namin malalaman kung

ano yung?

P1: Pwede rin. Pwede rin kung ano yung problema ng Porac. *shifted again* So
merong titled lots pala dun sa loob ng Porac. Itong Hermosa, okay na raw. Walang
problema rito kasi registered.

Kianna: Sir, meron po kayong documents na pwede naming gamiting source ng

information? Documents oo tungkol dun sa Hermosa and Porac para lang po
macompare namin?

P1: Anong document? Maraming document to eh.

Tei: Yung timeline.

Kianna: Yung parang kelan sila nag-submit ayun po.

Tei: Meron po kayong book na pinakita nun sa amin kasi yung sa Porac parang wala
silang ?*

P1: *code switched again* Oo. Ano gusto n’yong ibrowse? Pero di ako sure kung
meron yung timeline dun.

Kianna: apo po yung makuha naming information dun?

P1: Kagaya ng nakita n’yo noon. Ganun din. May mga timelines? Parang ganun din.

177
Kianna: Ano po kaya yung oarang key feature ng Hermosa, Bataan? Bat parang mas
nanuna syang nareleasean ng CADT? And nagkaroon po ng problema yung
Pampanga.

P1: Mas nauna yata itong Hermosa na nag-apply.

*pause*

P1: Itong 8,9 na lang, check n’yo kung anong kwan. Pero mamaya na lang doon na
lang kayo magcheck.

Kianna: Sir, yung Hermosa po ba may kasabay po s’ya nag-ano sa inyo? May
kasabay pos yang nag-apply? Yung same pong date so oarang medyo kasabay n’ya
lang po?
P1: Ay hindi ako sure. Baka dun sa provincial offices merong nga kwan.

Tei: Ahh. Mas maganda po kung doon namin itanong kasi mas alam nila ‘yun.

P1: Oo kung ano, kelan sila. Pero tingnan n’yo d’yan kung merong information dyan.

Kianna: Pero sir, ano po yung naiisip n’yong pagkakaiba nila as of now?

P1: Kasi hindi ko nareview yung kwan, mas maganda kung sa regional to kasi sila
yung nagprocess nyan. Sila nagprocess, mas alam nila yung naging problema. Kasi
rito, as to these substance lang ng claimbook ang nirereview namin dito pero kung sa
problema sa processing, doon mas alam nila

*pause*

Kianna: Sir, dun po di ba, na yung ‘yan po. Nabago n’yo po yung process.

P1: 2007 daw yung Porac na nag-apply, yung Hermosa is 2000 so…

Tei: Parang hindi magandang icompare. Parang di s’ya comparative.

Kianna: Sir, ayun po ano po yung pinakastriking na nabago sa process? Meron po ba

kayong inalis, dinagdag, in-edit na requirements?

P1: Sa process? Sa procedures? Actually, ito is on-going yung revision na naman. On-
going ngayon. Merong mga changes pero hindi pa…, may mga changes na ginawa
rito at may mga mayron ding dinagdag na mga provisions. So on-going ngayon so
nagstart sila na nagrevise nung last year so baka ngayong year mailabas nila or next
year yung bagong guidelines. May mga bago, mga bagong kwan.

178
Tei: Familiar po ba kayo sa process nung 2008?

P1: 2008? Halos kasi pareho eh. Konti lang yung… merong mga napalitan pero ang
nakakaalam na dyan yung sila kasing nagrevise. Teka, nandito si Engr. Manuel.

*pause*

Tei: Ayaaan.

Kianna: Sir, may copy pa po kayo nyan?

P1: Nag-iisa na lang yata tong guideline.

Kianna: Soft copy po. Wala po kayong soft copy?

Tei: Sir yung 2000, sir? Wala na?

Tei: Picture tayo after para may documentation.

P1: 2002.

Kianna: Sir may copy pa po kayo nito? Wala na po?

P1: Paxerox na lang natin to kung gusto n’yo.

Kianna: Ay sir, pwedeng ‘yun din po? Para po hard copy kasi.

*chit-chatting*

Tei: Hi Lance!

Kianna: Paki-transcribe mo rin to. Kailangan makita ko to.

Mico: Hi Lance.

Kianna: Sir, sa judgment n’yo na lang po. Anong region yung pinaka-ano po, very
compliant, very magaling sila magsubmit on time, mabilis yung process?

P1: Region XI.

Kianna: Ano po kayang possible reason doon?

P1: Ahh. Sa Region XI kasi sila yung mabilis magsubmit and magcomply. Hindi ako
sure kasi yung chairperson is from Region XI.

179
Kianna: So baka parang ano po.

P1: Siguro minsan sa management dun sa field offices pero Region XI mabilis talaga.

Kianna: Pinakambagal naman po. O hindi naman po yung pinakamabagal, siguro

kung relatively po, hindi s’ya gaanong makusad nang mabilis. Yung parang stagnant
na po yung application nila kasi ang dami pong problema.

P1: Ah oo nga. Pero hindi ko masabi nang dahil sa management eh. Minsan kasi
maraming factors dun. Kagaya ng mga security, mga ganong factors kaya ganong
mabagal sila. So far sa ngayon is Region IX or X. Mga ganun, Mindanao. Pero okay
naman.

Tei: Sir ano lang po para sa formality kasi itatranscribe na po yung records. Yung
recording po itatranscribe pa po nung isa naming kagroup. Pwede po bang paexplain,
kahit in layman’s term, yung process? Yung buong process?

P1: Itong delineation process?

Kianna: Marami po kasing technical terms, hindi namin masyadong maintindihan.

‘Pag binasa po kasi namin. Ah parang san yung arrow papunta? Anong mangyayari?
Anong ibig sabihin nyan? Mula sa simula po. Parang yung flow lang po sa madaling
linggwahe.

P1: Ah ito na lang mag-explaino ano.

*P2 entered*

P2: Pero nabasa n’yo po muna to?

Tei: Opo.

P2: *tawa*

Kianna: Parang overview lang po kasi parang nakakalito po. Hindi rin po namin alam
pinagkaiba ng mga offices, ano po yung functions, nalilito po kami sa arrows-arrows.

P2: Ang concern lang dito is kapag dito sa central office, dito lang sa ADO. Yung
mga offices na nandito is region and provincial office. So actually, detailed naman
yung pagkakalagay dito. CSC RPO, ito yung start so ICC IP ififile nila yung
application nila dun sa nearest na provincial office or CSC kapag sinabi nating CSC,
Community Service Center. Yung provincial office kasi is under it’s either may
dalawa syang hawak or may isang service center so kung saan nearest yung
community, dun sila magfile. After na magfile, yung form is libre naman ‘yun. It’s

180
not for sale. So fifill-upan ng community ‘yun. Isusubmit sa nearest na service center
or provincial office kaya CSC/PO. So irereceive nila dun and then they will, iassist
nila tingnan nila yung documents na kailangan nilang isubmit. And then after that
kapag okay na, actually ayan nakalagay na, constittution of PDT or CDT para ivaluate
nila yung proofs na sinubmit ng community, yung application form nila.

So, after that, kasi required sa IPRA na kailangan na magsubmit kami ng… itransmit
yung application form sa DENR and DAR. Kapag natransmit ‘yun, yubg regarding sa
pondo, preparation, ito na yung approval ng WFP. Kapag sinabi g WFP, Work and
Financial Plan. Dito na nakasetalye kung magkano ang gastusin from starting ng
oaggather ng document hanggang sa approval. Unfortunately, this year, walang po do
ang delineation and titling. Nacu tang budget namin. So wala kaming delineation pero
previous years, ngayon lang nangyari, this year. Previous years is parang per
province, nagtarget sila ng isa na madelineate. Kasi ang process ng delineation natin
is within one year kapag magstart ka ng stage 1 hanggang sa approval, hindi
makukuha ng one year. Mahirap din kasi paggather ng community. Ang sinasabi ng
taga-field namin kung pupunta sila dun, kung wala yung taong iinterviewhin nila,
aantayin nila.

Tapos after that, kasi yung social prep kasi eto yung social prep. Yung sinasabi
naming social prep is hanggang dito. Eto lahat to eto yung social, start dito eto yung
sinasabi naming social preparation stage. Ang resulta nito is yung SPAR (Social
Preparation Accomplishment Report) so nakadetalye doon ang pagconduct ng mga
community. Pumunta sila doon nag-IEC sila (Information Education Consultation) sa
lahat tapos naggather sila ng testimonies of elders kasi required ‘yun. Kinuha nila
yung genealogy nila. Dapat kapag yung ego or yung informant nila is dapat yung
kuhanan nila is three generations. For example, ikaw iniinterview namin you’re 47
years old, yung lolo lolo lolo dapat hanggang sa pataas sana, three generation pataas
ang makuhanan sa’yo. ‘Yun ang required sa amin. Sa ganon. So ivavalidate ‘yun,
lahat ng mga dokumentong binibigay ng communuty, iprepare ng NCIP. Kailangan
nang ivaludate ng IP leader. So lahat kung mapapansin nyo yung recognition book
namin, validated by or conformed ng tribal leader or elder. So ‘yun yung mga major.

Tapos kailangan din yung census. Kailangan malaman kung ilan ang IPs doon.
Though may mga IPs din na migrants so alamin nila kung yung mga migrants ba ay
cinoconsider nilang beneficiary or hinde. Kasi syempre kapag ako, IP ako, asawa ko
is non-IP. Kung yung community ko ba ay cinoconsider din nilang beneficiary? So
depende ‘yun per community. May iba kasing community, napapansin namin sa mga
recognition book na nirerecognize nila kasi parang ba’t mo pa hindi irecognize eh
syempre nakipag-asawa na. Pero may mga iba talaga na kung may migrant ka, hindi
ka considered sa mga benefits, yung asawa mo lang.

Kianna: anong po yung benefits na hindi nila pwedeng makuha?

181
P2: Kasi for example, di ba meron kasi sa kabilang?*, ‘Yun nga if PIC, di ba kapag
ancestral domain area to. Etong lugar na ‘to. May papasok na project. Like for
example yung mini hydro. Kapag may papasok doon, syempre may mga share.
Dadaan sila sa Free and Prior Informed Consent na process kung papahintulutan ng
community dito na papasok yung project na ‘yun. Pero bago papasok yung project na
‘yun, may nga terms and conditions. “Oops, bago kayo pumasok, dapat ganito.” So,
may sharing. So, from the share, dun na san ba mapupunta yung mga sharings. It’s the
communuty to decide na so dapat klaro din ‘yun sana. And then yung isa pa don is
yung census kasi is inaattach ‘yun, isang requirement kapag ipaparegister yung title.
Inaattach yung census na ‘yun sa title bago iregister ng ROD. ‘Yun yung parang
content report kaya meron ‘yung preparation of SPAR.

Kianna: ‘Yun na po yung napagdaanan n’yo na? Ito po yung result n’ya?

P2: Ito yung napagdaanan. Ito yung result n’ya. Yung result na ‘yun gagawin ng
provincial officer na ieendorse nila sa region. Yung region, regional office, meron
tayong sinasabi RRB (Regional Review Body). Nirereview n’ya yung SPAR kung
okay ba. Ayun so after na inendorse na okay. Oh, iendrose na ng regional director dito
sa amin. Kapag sa tingin naming “Ops. Nacomply nila.” Mag-issue na kami ng work
order. Yung work order na ‘yun is sinasabi ng central offuce na “Oh, kayo regional
director pwede ka nang mag-issue ng notice to proceed sa mga enginners para isurvey
na nila yung perimeter ng ancestral domain.”

Kianna: So sa inyo pong office mag-signal po nun?

P2: Oo yung director ng ADO ang mag-iissue. So, after that, nareceive na nila yung
ano. So nandun na yung work order sa region. Yung regional director mag-iissue na
sam ga notice to proceed sam ga engineers, issuance of work orders. Ito naman
gagawin ng mga engineers. Pagka-receive nila, as per mandate ng lahat ng surveys
pati sa private, is mag-issue ka ng notification letter sa mga adjacent communities
para sa mission planning. Sa mission planning na ‘yun, darating yung mga adjacent
lalo po?* If ever na may titulo ka doon, pupunta ka para kung ano yung gusto mong
itanong, open ‘yun. Magtanong ka. Mag-invite sila from DENR, DAR, LGU, mga
private sectors, ayun yung mangyayari.

Tei: Ma’am, pati po dun sa di ba yung rd endorsement of ADO? * what if may mga
kulang, ganyan?

P2: Ibabalik namin for them to comply. May nangyari ‘yun.

Tei: Hindi naman sila magstart ulit sa…

P2: Ay hindi naman. Icomply lang nila yung hinihingi namin. Oo, yun.

182
P2: So ‘yun eto na yung sa technical. Yung sinassabi namin na reconaissance is eto
yung puntahan nila yung area para malaman nila kung saan ilalagay. Ituro ng
community kung saan ba ilalagay yung mohon? * Para sa mga kasamahan naming
geodetic engineer alam nila kung paano yung pagtraverse, kung saan nila iset-up yung
instruments. ‘Yun yung purpose rin ng reconnaissance. Ituro nila kung saan ba yung
boundries para istrategize ng mga engineers. “Sige dito tayo pupwesto para makita
natin bith corners. Para di matagalan pagconduct ng survey.” ‘Yun yun.

Ayun after the conduct if survey, during the survey kailangan ng may kasamang IP
leaders kasi sila magtuturo kung saan boundary kasi hindi naman alam ng mga
engineers kung saan. So, it’s the community elders na magturo kung saan. After that,
kung nasurvey na, syempre ayusin na technical descriptions. Eto na yung survey
returns preparation. Yung mga computation na. Kapg natapos na ng mga engineers
yung computation nila, dadalhin na ulit sa ADO. Kami naman ang gagawin namin,
icheck namin kung okay ba yung computation nila. Kasi kung minsan kahit
nagcocompute yung kasamahan namin, naduduling din sa mga numbers sa dami ng
corners. Vineverify lang namin kung okay ba yung computations. Tapos pinoproject
namin dito kung wala syang in-overlap sa dating nasurvey ng NCIP. So, kung okay
na, iendorse na namin sa baba ulit para ipa-map validate nila.

Yung map validation ang nagyayari dito is yung engineer pupunta ulit sila sa
community. Tatawagin ulit yung community. Papakita yung mapa. “Eto yung mapa
n’yo, tama ba yung pagkasulat namin ng mga barangays, tama ba yung nalagyan natin
ng mohons? *” So, it’s community na titingnan nila kung tama. “Oops, ba’t di n’yo
nalagay yung isang ano run, bundok?” Iyon. Dun na magraraise. Kung sa tingin
nilang okay na yung nagawa ng engineer, pipirma na sila sa mapa. ‘Pag napirmahan
na yung mapa, that’s the time na ipublish na nila sa newspaper for two weeks.

Kianna: Ah. Ayun po yung pinakita saming malaki kanina? ‘Yun na po ‘yun.

P2: So ipupublish nila ‘yun pero yung technical description, hindi na kasama yung
mapa. Two consecutive weeks ipublish. At the sane time, iendorse nila sa DENR and
DAR para tingnan din ng DENR and DAR kung may pumasok na mga title
properties. And habang ginagawa nila sa field ‘yun, on our part dito sa central office,
ineendorse din namin sa LRA para tingnan din ng LRA kung may pumasok na title
properties doon. If ever may pumasok na title properties, nakalagay sa batas IIPRA.
Before 1997, mga approved surveys or titles issued before 1997, kailangang
respetuhin, kailangan tanggalin. So ayun yung nakakatagal sa amin kasi isa-isahin mo
compared yung area namin by hectare tapos isang title, square meter. Kung makita
mo sa title, di mo pa makita baka yung dot lang makita mo. Yun ang nakakatagal.

Tei: ‘Yun po ba yung segregation?

P2: Yun na yung segregation process.

183
Tei: Saan po, kapag segregation process, sang process babalik? Babalik pa po ba?
Gagawa pa ulit ng survey plan?

P2: Oo. Pero sa tagal din ng pagreply ng DENR, DAR, and LRA on the request
namin. Ang sinabi ng commission namin alangan antayin namin ‘yun eh ang dami
nang pumapasok na mga pinapasukan na ng private entity yung mga lupaing ninuno.
Kawawa naman ang IPs..Diretso na kami. Kung matagal mag-issue ang DENR and
DAR, proceed na kami. Kasi may agreement eh. May joint administrative agreement
ang DENR, DAR, LRA, and NCIP na within, I think kung hindi ako nagkakamali, 15-
30 days na walang result of projection. Hindi kasi nakalagay doon kung ano ang
parang anong tawag doon? Kung ano ang…. if ever hindi magcomply, ano ang
magiging resulta nun? Walang nakalagay dun eh. So on our part, ineendorse na namin
para maaprubahan ng commission. Kasi kawawa rin ang IPs kung maghintay sila sa
result na ibibigay ng DENR, matagal. Baka maubos na eh lalo na I think everyday
hindi kami nauubusan ng IP na pupunta rito na magreklamo na ang kanilang lupain ay
pinapasok na ng mga private entity, mga mayayaman daw sa kanila. So iyun din yung
isa, so saan na tayo?

Ayun. Kapag pinublish for two consecutive weeks, mag-aantay ang NCIP ng another
two weeks kung may magsubmit ng protest. Kung within two weeks, after nang two
weeks na napublished di ba, so another two weeks pa na mag-aantay so bale one
month. Kung walang nareceive na protest, ‘yun na. Kung isubmit nila, kung nakita
yung recognition book, ilagay na nila dun. Isubmit na rito samin, ievaluate na naming
kung okay sa tingin namin na walang problema, iendorse na namin sa LAO (Legal
Affairs Office) para icheck din nila. Mero ‘yun eh, pero di lang yata nakalagay dito.
Ah meron. Review of ADO and LAO. So sa tingin namin ay okay, endorse na namin
sa concern ethnographic commissioner para ipaagenda na n’ya for deliberation.

Tapos yung pagdating sa deliberation ng commission, tatlong readings to. First

reading, second reading, third reading. For example, during first reading, ang
mangyayari kasi kapag deliberation is magpepresent yung provincial officer or kaya
yung director.

*chief arrived*

Tapos ‘yun during sa deliberation kasi pinepresent kung pano yung stages para makita
ng commissioners. Ipresent ng provincial officer yung mga proofs, yung mga pictures,
yubg mga landmarks, ano yung evidences nila na dapat ay sabihin na na since time
immemorial nandyan yung community. So they have to convince the seven
commissioners. Kapag as to the walang gaanong question ang mga commissioners,
may tendency na inaaprubahan nila first and second reading agad. Pero kapag sa
tingin nila na marami pa silang icomply, aaprubahan na lang ulit ng commission ng
first reading na so babalik ulit sila sa second reading para ipakita yung compliance.

184
For example, hindi satisfied yung commissioner sa paggather nila ng testimonies.
“Oops, kulang pa yung testimonies na inattached n’yo. Kailangan dagdagan nyo pa.”
Ayun.

After that, kapag nacomply ng mga provincial offices naman, dadalhin ulit dito.
Ieendorse ulit namin, irereview. Ieendorse ulit for delibreation for third and final
reading. That’s the time na naaprubahan na nila. Kapag naaprubahan na, ayun
iprepare na yung resolution tapos pati yung title. Eto na yung title, CADT and CALD.
Tapos dito na ulit, mapansin n’yo yung segregation kung matagal na ang ‘pag-issue
ng DAR, DENR, or LRA, dito na ulit yung babalik kami kasi hindi talaga maregister
‘yan ng ROD kung di matanggal yung mga title and properties. So maramin kami
d’yan na nakaapprove na title na hindi pa registered kaya ayun. Matagal sa
registration. Pero meron nang may naregistered, sa region XI may nangyari na
tinanggal yung alienable and disposable lands (AND). Para lang kasi yung mga
ANDs, tendency may mga title ‘yan. Pumayag ang community kaya mabilis na
naregister.

*napakaingay na zipper*

At kaya last year may naregister na tatlo. Pati na rin sa region CAR, hindi naman
gaano yung mga title properties dun kaya may naregister sa Kalinga last year. So bale
tatlo yung naregister. So ‘yun yung process tapos may awarding na.

P3: May idadagdag lang ako. Bakit sinesegregate ang properties? Ang reason kasi ng
LRA ay para hindi madouble registration kasi yung mga title properties na nauna
nang maawardan befire IPRA, nakaregister na ‘yan. So nakapaloob naman sa
ancestral domain, kaya sinesegregate natin. Ayun ‘yun, para hindi madouble
regustration.

Kianna: Ano pong implications ‘pag meron pong double registration?

P3: Makikita kasi sa projection ng LRA. Kaya din yung probection result, makikita
nila ‘pag in-overlay. So, ‘yun yung purpose bakit namin pinapasubmit yung mga
survey pln for projection.

P3: Saang school kayo?

Kianna: Sa UP po.

P3: Diliman?

P2: Anong course?

In-chorus: Public Ad po.

185
P2: Wow. Public Ad tapos pumunta kayong technical ah. Ahaha *ano ba dapat
ate???*

Kianna: Ah. Ma’am sa inyo na lang po. Ano po yung areas of improvements sa
division n’yo and sa process po nung issuance na maghehelp po na magfacilitate ng
faster na pagrerelease ng CADTs, registration na rin po?

P3: Alam n’yo kasi yung plantilla namin dito talagang kulang na kulang. ‘Yun talaga
yung isang nirerecommend pa namin. Manpower, kukang talaga yung manpower.
‘Yun lang kasi itong division namin, imagine-in mo apat lang kami so ang ginagawa
namin nagcocontract kami ng job orders tapos project-based yung kanilang salaries.
Pero kung walang pondo, wala. So ang isang ano talaga dun is yung funds. Budgetary
constraints talaga ang sa NCIP. Konti lang kasi ang pondo ng NCIP so yung ibang
stakeholders, nagfifinance sila sa delineation titling para mapadali. May mga NGOs,
ibang LGUs, nagfifinance din sila. Kasi kapag yung General Appropriation na lang ng
NCIP, kulang talaga. Ang binibigay lang kasi ngayon, isang ancestral domain per
province per year. Pero ngayon wala nang ganun, walang-wala talaga. So ayun din
yung kulang sa amin, budgetary constraints, lacking manpower, pati sa delineation
process. Kapag di maganda yung klima, kung minsan yung mga other institutions,
may mga challenges sa ‘pag-implement ng delineation and titling process.

Kianna: Last na po. Dun pos a process kasi parang nasabi po ni Sir kanina na meron
po yata kayong plan na irevise na naman yung process. Ano po yung possible na…?

P3: Hindi namin irerevise. Ienhance. Ineenhance ‘yan kasi may mga broad na
definition para lang maging maintindihan ba in layman’s term. Ayun yung magiging
parang guide ng mga empleyado namin sa field. Kaya ineenhance namin.

Tei: Pero on the process itself sa tingin n’yo po ba, is it enough na para ayun nga po
makapagissue kayo nang sapat na CADTs?

P3: Okay lang sa process kasi eh. Ang kulang nga lang yung tao namin na gagawa
and then funds. Kasi yung sa ginagawa namin sa common projection, kailangan din
namin ng funds sa pagkuha ng research data from DENR and DAR. Kasi hindi rin
nila napopondohan ‘yan kasi sa mandate nila, wala ‘yun bago ang NCIP. So ‘yun
yung mga di naaaddress, kailangan talaga dun may pondo talaga. Kasi ‘pag nagkuha
kami ng mga data yung mga title properties sa kanila. Kailangan naming
magreproduce ng mga documents, kukuha kaming pondo.

P2: Ay oo, yung isa oa d’yan Ma’am. For example, yung nakuhang data, ‘yun noon-
noong naaprubahan na title, hindi s’ya naka-PRS 92 (Philippine Reference System of
1992).

186
P1: Dito may batas kasi si President Fidel Ramos na dapat lahat ng surveys natin
naka-PRS 92.

P2: Eh yung mga lumang surveys naka-WGS pa. So kailangan mong iconvert ‘yun.
Hindi basta-basta pag converting dun. Isa ring dilemma sa amin yung pagsegregate
kasi hindi mo pwedeng palitan technically ‘yun, pano mo iproject ‘yun.

[End of Recording]

187
 APPENDIX I
NCIP Region 3 Office Interview Transcription

MARCH 13, 2018

San Fernando City, Pampanga
Regional Office
Engineer Gibbs P. Bestoton (Engineer 3)
Technical Management Service Division
_____________________________________________________________________

LEGEND:

IW- Interviewee
IT- Interviewer

Interviewee: Sino nagrekomenda sakin?

Interviewer: Dun pa sa CADT sa claimbook kayo po yun ano…

IW: Sa Limay? Ah okay

IT: Botolan, Zambales po

IW: Sige anyway, tignan natin. Ako yung sa Limay, yung Botolan hindi na ako so...Sa
Limay muna tayo no?

IW: Yung role ko ng CADT process is ako yung Chief of *inaudible* nung survey
Btw yung course nyo is?

IT: PA po

IW: Masteral ba to or? Or?

IT: Undergrad po

IW: Ahh ako yung pagsukat ng perimeters nung ancestral domain actually hindi pa
siya CADT. Alam niyo na ba yung meaning ng CADT? Yung ancestral domain title
for instance kaya mali ang NCIP dun sa CADT Title. Kasi wala pang title. Ancestral
domain talaga ito. So nasagot na yung number two? Ilang engineer? Three? Ako yung
gumagawa ng research and all issues on *inaudible* survey under DAR. For research,
lahat ito para dun sa common conversion. Kasama na ito sa registry of deeds fo a
particular province...LRA. Kung minsan yung walang records sa probinsya ...sa

188
bataan meron naman sa Quezon city. Lahat yan naissue before 1997. Lahat ng
naapprove nung 1997 isesegregate dun sa ancestral domain Dun sa number
three...More or less 250K yung budget nya. Yung survey a lang. Pero umaabot ng
milyon yung buong process. Ang time consuming sa surveying ay kung doon sa first
community meeting ay di sila nagkakaintindihan. Napuounta sa 2nd, 3rd meeting
hanggang sa mag-agree sila lahat. Yung sinasabi nilang boundary. Yung kasi sa batas,
sinasabi doon na yung magiging hangganan nung sukat is kung ano yung maitututuro
ng Elders ayon sa naalala nila na pwedeng naapakan. Kung ano yung naaabot ng
alaaala nila. Dun yung kinukunan ng survey team. Aabot ito ng 1month to 6 months
depende sa hirap ng trail na aakyatin sa bundok. Pero pag nagkaroon ng drone, isang
araw nalang yung 6 months na yun

IT: DIba po para malaman na yung talagang location, parang may specific generation
yung kailangan masurveyan? Pano pa 2nd gen nalang yung buhay?

IW: Dun sa prep ng claimbook nakasaad dun na, dun sa census na gagawin, kwan kasi
ito scrambled hindi in oder...Ahh, bago yung survey nauna na iyong Community or
Provincial Delineation. Nauna na sila sa field kasi sila yun mas may kaalaman sa area.
Bago yung survey, nakapagcensus ns sila, kasi dun nakalagay yung genealogy. Dun
nakalagay yung 5th generation. Dun nila mababanggit yung abot ng maaalala nila.
Number 7? Anthropolgical issues?

IW: Meron at meron. Kaialangan nareresolve talaga ito before the presentation of...or
before the 7 Judges or 7 commissioners. FYI, bago ito ma-aaprove dinedeliberate ito
sa Commissioners. Dito mabbring up yung anthropological issues. Number 8? Dun sa
process, ahh, before the conduct of survey may sulat na kami sa DENR or
stakeholders, tawag dun is Survey Notification Letters dun sa DENR, DAR and LRA.
15 Days before the actual survey icoconduct namin...I mean. 15 days before planning,
naikalat na namin yun letters. Mayor’s office. DAR. LRA. DENR. Processor’s office.
Municipal Planning Office. Dun sila lahat. Ito yung madugo.Lahat ng previoously
relesaed CLOA, irerecognize at isesegregate yan kasi ayaw ng Registrar of deeds na
irelease yan. Dun sa common projection involved ang DAR, DENR and LRA.
Itatransalate sakanila for common projection. Yung actual stage ng limay...Kakakuha
ko last wk yung approved plans nila. Gagawin namin, aapprove namin yung survey
plans na nakuha. Isesegregate namin yung mga nakuha tapos itatransmit ulit namin sa
DENR for final projection. Purpose nito ay para bigyan kami ng Certificate of Non-
overlap. Yung kailanagn ng office na to para irecommend sa LRA na i-title. Pag nag-
issue and DAR, DENR at LRA, dun kai magfifinalize at iaaward sa area. MEaning
naiprocess na anmin yung title niya. Yung Botolan, titled na ah. Wha are the
bottlenecks? Actually wala naman talaga ang naeencounter lang nmin na “hirap” yun
ahh, kung may kumokontra pero usually pag naeexplain. Alam niyo bat may
kumkontra, ang isip nila kasi kukunin na. Naririnign kasi nila na sa batas daw ay
pagaari daw yung bundok na yun . Lingid sa kaalaaman nila na lahat ng naappove na,

189
tatanggalin dun sa ano. Aside from that, yung typhoon. Ang hirap lahat ng galaw.
What triggered? Bat nyo alam? Meron ba?
We are able to process 4 titled ancestral domain becase of *inaudible*

IT: Kasama po yung sa Floridablanca?

IW: Mabalacat, Pastolan...Mabilis pala. Yung Malacanang tinatawagan yung mga

directors pagdating mo dun, ibibigay na yung title. Nung nakatawag na kami,
inaccommodate na kami. In an hour, registered na. What are the cause of delay of
processing in Bataan? Mahirap to. Mahirap to yung nagkaroon ng shuffling of
directors. Ung rigodon ng 2012, tumagal. Di inaasikaso yung communications. Sabi
understaff. Marami daw ginagawa. Meron yung misunderstanding dun sa
isesegregate.Ang gusto ng DENR, isesegragate lahat national parks, timberland
etc.malinaw sa batas kasama ng ancestral domain yan. Yan ang tumatagal sa process
ng projection tulad ng survey sa General *inaduble” kasi sa Proclamation No. 203 ang
military rerservation pag sinegregate namin, wala nang matitira. Ang isesegregate
lang private lands. Malilintikan naman kami pag di namin gagawin.

IT: Yung mismong individual po may cases na gusto nyang igive up yumg land nya?

IW: Possible. Yung mga ibang Aeta leaders, magugulang din sila. Yug iba, gusto na
din nila isegregate nila yung yung barangay para makinabang sila lahat hindi lang yun
2-3 leaders nila. Yung delay na nangyayari sa processing, kasama yung Limay,
halimbawa, sa Engineer lang, hindi masyado pinapansin sa DENR. Nagpapataasan ng
kilay. Kahit naaksideneng naittile yan, basta may title, lahat mairerespeto. The central
office try to resolve this matter. Yung recommendation is secretary to seretary na
mag-usap. Di kana luluhod sa harap nila na please please ibigay nyo na kailagnan
namin. Isegregarete nyo yan..Reservation, timberland, forestland, part yan ng
ancestral domain.

IT: Problema nito, wala akong maicompre kasi di ako yung sa Zambales. Anyway,
pareho lang. Meron yung di ako assigned sa survey na katabi ng. *inadible*.
Naapprove nung 2016 pero di pa mairelease kasi ayaw naman irecognize yung section
56. Kung involved ako sa Zamabales kasi yung ugali ng Aetas ng Bataan parehas lang
sa Zambales. Tamad yung mga Dinagat Aetas.

IT: By tamad, do you mean ttamad makipagcooordinate?

IW: AH hndi naman. Basta hindi sila magkasunod na gusto ng isa, ayaw ng isa.
Ireresolve muna yan kasi di pwedeng magsukat pag di kayo nagkakaisa sa ituturo nyo.
Yung problema ng survey team, yung pagkain, allowance at trail at kung di papayag
yung mayor. Pero sa Limay, smooth. Yung vice mayor mismo yung pinapababa kami.
Nung nareceive ko na may barilan na threat. Bumababa kami. Sinumbong ko sa
provincial office at binigyan kami ni Gen. Vilanueva ng mga sundalo

190
IT: May role po ba ang LGUs sa sa pagintroduce sa resdents?

IW: Ah wala. Kami na nagcourtesy call na may work notice na and na kami ay under
the office of the President at kung kailan kami magsisimula. Dun naman sa Casiguran.
Hinarang ng mismong mayor yug survey.

IT: E sabi nyo indepedent ang NCIP?Ano po ginagawa nyo. Pag hinahanrang kayo ng
LGUS.

IW: We are always advised by the superior to coordinate with LGUs. So far, di naman
nangyari sa Limay and usually pagka yung nakausap namin na offical from any LGU
pag natunugan mo na negative yung approach nya susulat kami sa pinakamalapit na
infantry /for assistance/ do you think the process is efficient in Botolan for 4 yrs?
Pano nyo nalaman ng4 yrs?

IT: Based po sa claimbook.

IW: Efficient pa yung 4 yrs kasi nagyayari diyan kasi pag nagaaply yung IPs, tapos
usually ieendorse yan ng chief survey center tapos pag kulang kukumpleuhin tapos
pupunta sa provincial office the eventually, regonal office, Pag-abot dito, kumpleto
na, ieendorse namin sa Head Office. Kung maganda ganda na, pag nakahanap na ng
fund, 600-1M. In a 4 yr time, napondohan nasurvey, naaprove at natitle. Yes, this is
efficient for me kasi yung iba 10 yrs pero may mga kanya kanyan problema kasi yung
ibang areas. Wala pa kong nakikitang mas maaga dito.

IT: Di po ba yung 4 yrs efficient na?Ano. Po yung standard nyo na sabihin na di na

efficient?

IW: Makikita mo lang na efficent yung span ng process dun sa pagaprove ng process.
Ichecheck ito kung naapprove ba upon submission of claim or nung naponoham.

IT: Yung sa Limay po, diba 2004 po nadirect file ng claim, kailan po naaprove yung
budget?

IW: Nangyari kasi before yung survey, nawala niya yung data 3 yrs after. Sukutan
namin nung 20...Check natin? Ano yung tinataning mo, yung pagkaapprove nya no?

IT: Opo

IW: Anong taon binaggit mong taon?

IT: 2009 po

191
IW: Ito yung sinsabi kong masipag na director, Bilis ng communication nila. BAka
2009 napondohan kasi nung financer nila received January 2009. 2010, 2011 na
namin sinukat. Ito yung poject completion reporty ko July 2011. So yung 2011,
pagkatapos ng survey dun naman naiipit sa DENR. Kung kami lang siguro...Check
nyo sa Section 56. Parang wala. Ah eto, eto nandun pala sa huli.
This tile is subject of Section 56 of RA 8136...Kaya nakalagay dito, purposely, pag
sinukatan namin di n sana kailangan ng projection with partner agencies. Nagegets
nyo ba yung sabi dun? Dapat given na. Sinukatan mo yung ibang ancestral domain,
pag may private dun, irerespeto yon. Ang di namin maintidihan, bakit kailanagan
tanggalin.nButi pa yung DAR nagrrelease agad ng CNO...Lately, yung LRA, atleast
nakapagrelease ng isang CNO. I think this is efficient for Bataan.

IT: Ano nalang po recommendation nyo?

IW: Sususnod ako sa kagustuhan ng DENR, dun sa mga titles ya, ayun tatanggalin ko
na talaga sa area nya pero ayoko gawin sa isang malaking resettlement area. Kung
ginawa ko yun, sige itutuloy. Pero pag dumating ang panahon, malalaman ng Aetas
ako ang papatayin.Yung secretary to secretary ang magusap. Di na sana namin
kailangan lumuhod pa na nakikiusap.

IT: Diba po as Sec 56, yung JAO po ba ay necessary?

IW: Mas pinatagal nya, Necessary pero nagiging consensus na pero lalo niyang
pinapatagal.

[End of Recording]

192
 APPENDIX J
NCIP Region 3 Office Interview Transcription

MARCH 19, 2018

San Fernando City, Pampanga
Regional Office
Kevin Constantine R. Fonseca (Planning Officer III)
Technical Management Service Division
_____________________________________________________________________

Sir Kevin: What is you role function as planning officer in relation to CADT process?
As planning officer wala naman sa position description form ko na magtrabaho about
CADT but bahagi ako ng technical working group. Yung regional review body (RRB)
na nagrereview ng recognition book. Ano yung recognition book? Yun ang
nagccontain lahat ng information na nagather ng community at NCIP to prove yung
claim o ownership ng IP group sa kanilang ancestral domain. So tinatrabaho ng field
unit o provincial delineation team yung recognition book tapos sinusubmit sa regional
office tapos nirereview ng RRB, so part ako ng RRB. As planning officer, tintignan
ko doon yung data, mga anthropological data na nakalagay sa recognition book kung
nasusunod ba, not just kung anong sinsabi ng guideline but sa standardard o kung
tama ang pagkakagawa, pagkakadokumento, tama ang mga tanong, kung tama ang
pagkakapresent ng data na nagather ng PDT sa community. So yun ang role ko as
planning officer.

Second question, how do you coordinate with aetas during the data gathering? Ahhh,
yung delineation at titling, mayroon syang iba’t ibang phases. Nagsisimula sya sa
tinatawag na phase 1. Actually, itong phase 1 na ito, sa pagsisimula parang mayroon
pa syang subphases. Yung una syempre parang pre-CADT assessment. So magffile
sila ng application, tapos iaassess naming yung application nila kung tamaa yung
nakalagay. Ah ano lang, ministerial and then ieelevate naming yung application nila
sa commission for funding. Then once approved ang project proposal para sa
delineation at titling, kapag sabihin na nating napondohan yan for a year, dun papasok
ang social preparation and mobilization phase. Social preparation ang mobilization
activities. Dun sa SPAR, yun na ang coordination part. Nagcoconduct kami ng
information education consultation sa mga communities na to o sa mga IPs na
concerned. Sinasabi naming ang karapatan nila at mga mangyayari sa delineation
process. Ano yung data gathering na sinsabi doon, ano yung information na kailangan
nila iprovide. Dapat malinaw sa community, particularly sa mga leaders kung anong
proseso ang pagdadaanan ng CADT, ano yung part nila dun, anong klase at level ng
info ang dapat ibigay as proof of ownership bilang tulong sa una nilang claim sa lupa.
So yun ang tinatawag na coordination, it can be formal letter tapos ipapareceive sa
kanila weeks or months prior the gathering. Kailangan black ang white talaga, pwede
naming silang abisuhan before pero kailangan sumunod yung letter pero ang SOP ay

193
sulat talaga kahit na di sila marunong bumasa. Then we ask the youth or mga key
personalities to read lalo na sa mga matatanda. Kasi yung mga aetas natin sa lahat ng
area, alam nila dapat na may papel.

What are the problems encountered during the data gathering of the profile of
concerned area? Problems? Sa lima yang nagging concern dito ay sobrang dami ng
information na kailngang igather but the guidelines or omnibus fall short on providing
comeprehensive fieldwork manual- how to do gather data. Kasi these are primary
anthropological data, testimonies, so kung anong alam ni NCIp since nabuo siya, yun
ang gagawin niya. Sa guidelines, testimony daw, pero testimony as a proof from the
standpoint of anthropology and ethnography ay hindi sapat. So ang challenge is how
to gather data for NCIP, wala kaming trained ethnographers, social scienstist. Ang
alam lang naming awin ay makipagmeeting at community organization. Pero ang data
gathering ibang level yon. So maraming kailangang data na igatheri pero ang
technical capability or skill to gather those data at ipaganalyze ay mas mahirap. So
anong bang napansin nyo sa recognition books naming?

Jacob: Parang ang dami pong communications and memo na medyo paulit-ulit.

Sir Kevin: Are there any delays in gathering documents? Ah, mayroon pa pala sa
problems. So technical capability, to gather and analyze data, second, limited funding.
Limited funding tlaga. Kung ipupush naming ang ethnography, ang pamamaraan kung
paano ito ginaga2wa ng social sicence ay hindi sya medyo favourable sa view ng
bureauracy. Mayroon kaming guideline na nagsasabing dapata ang involve lang ang
PDT, 3 persons at a time na magffieldwork. Pero kasi ang dami ng data na kailangan
mong igather at disenyo ng ethnography ay hindi ganon. Tapos may certain days lang
na pwedeng mag stay sa community. E ethnography kailangan extended residence.
Ginagawa nga yan for at least a year, e walang ganyang luxury ang government para
iisugo dun ng ganong katagal ang empleyado ng gobyerno. So the soc sci approach
may not be, parang incompatible ba sa mga mechanism setforth by the guidelines by
NCIP, masyado kasing legalistic at technical ang approach ng guidelines. Kaya nga
sya di nakapagprovide ng clear means on how to gather data because legalistic
approach lang ang naconsider sa data gathering. But academic side of it, di ba hindi
ka naman basta basta magseselect ng key informant.

Isa pa ay ang selection of key informant, sino ang key informant ninyo? SI chieftain
lang ba lagi? Yun bang lagi lang visible? You do you select them? Kasi crucial yun
ang pinaguusapan dito ay ang kanilang identity. So pag mahina ang testimony,
mahirap iargue sa commission ang kanilang claim or ownershipsa lupa.

So funding nasabi ko na, parang di match yung guideline sa academic ano. Pero
inaddaress na namin ngayon yan, nirerevise naming yung guideline. Pinapasok yung

194
ethnography ngayon kasi narecogniza lang nay un ang kulang. Ano yung ethnography
ano yung participant observation? Di alam ng mga kasamagan naming yan.

Are there any delays in gathering documents of IPs? Ah, meron. Maraming delay, ah
sa limay, yung paggather ng proof. Sabi sa guideline, sige yyou gather testimony, you
gather genealogy, pero how do you gather? So may delay, makikita ng kasamhan
naming may kulang so babaliksa kanila, magsusubmit sila ng SPAR, social
preparatory acitivity report. After yan ng social mobilization. Kapag kulang, babalik
nanama, kailangan nilang icomply yun. Sa limay makikita niyo ilan ang respondents
dun, kalian sila nagsusubmit. So yun ang delay dun. Pero yung delay as to getting
information mulasa sa IP ay wala naman amsyado delay as long as may fund ka na,
nakapagset ka na sa community, available sila so okay na. So ang delay ay more of
bureauracy din, internal na sya sa NCIP.

Jacob: Sir sa Limay, Bataan po. Napansin ko po kasi sa testimony ng mga elders na
malalayo ang agwat at four times na nagbigay ng testimony? So ano po ang reasons?
Parang hiwahiwalay ang date from data gathered?

Sir Kevin: ah kasi kulang. Yung available na data gathered ng PDT ay kulang kaya di
yan tinaatanggap ng RRB, kaya maggather nanaman at kukuha nanaman ng
matatanda. So yun ang nagccause ng delay, so babalik nnaman tayo sa capability to
gather and analyze data.

Dun sa projection namin with other agencies, may delay din dyan, syempre di naman
agad agad kayang magproduce ng DENR, it will take some time, ganun din ang LRA
at DAR. Kung ncip lang yan, matatapos kaming gumawa ng mapa, apporove na
naming, may title na ang katutubo. Pero hindi ganoon ang sinasabi ng JAO. Bounded
kami ng JAO between four agencies, so sa projection may delay dyan.Kapag bumalik
na sa amin ang communication, so NCIP ito ang tenurial, so kami irerespeto at
isesegregate naming yon. So months nanaman ang aabutin ng segregation. So yung
original na 10 000 magiging 8 000. Daratring si DAR at LRA tapos may mga titled
properties tapos mababawasan ulit at tatanggalin nanaman naming ulit. At hindi lang
sa regional office pati sa central office kailangan malinis bago maissuhan ang clean
title. So yan ang delay, inter-agency delays.

So yun ang mga delays, institutional (sa NCIP), inter-agency, at sa community wala
naman delay. Dahil ang mga IPs ay very eager at sila talaga ang nagppush, sila nga
ang nagaapply e so wala talaga silang delay.

How much the institution spent in gathering information?

316, supplemental tapos original budget was…so ang total 299

So yun lang, sabihin mo ng 600- 1M in average.

195
How long does it take to conduct census and gather necessary documents sa IPs. How
long? Hmm yung census sabihin mo ng, depende sa laki yan e. Census sa Limay,
kung susundin mo ito 3 years in the making ito, ng data gathering. Pwede kasing putol
putol ang budget na dumating ano. Pero ngayon, ang data gathering ay 3 months tapos
na. kahit nga 1 week ang dami mo ng data na maggather e, basta tuloy tuloy at walang
patid. Kasi nga, pinapaemploy ko na yung ethnograhy so kailangan extended
residecnce, kailangan walang putol. Yung census, mayroon kasing bahagi ng CWG o
community working group trainee na inttrain mo silang maggather ng census, so the
NCIP need not to be doing the actual census themselves para magaan ang trabaho. At
dahil CWG sila, provided naman sa guidelines na pwede naming itap ang community
to gather census. May chieftain, bawat sitio may chieftain, si chieftain itrain mo so
bahala na si chieftain na icensus sila. Pwede din naming ang mga kabataan, inoorient
naming sila na ginagawa nila ito para din sa kanilang community. So in a weeks’ time
yan, bumabalik ang mga datos sa amin, dinadala ng mga bata so di na naming
kailangang lumabas kasi magastos ang pagcensus. Yung pagtawid mo ng sapa, 1500,
ubos ang pondo mo. Ang kalakhan ng ginagastos ditto ang transportasyon, kasi ang
mahal e. magbabayad ka ng Bangka, another 1000 nanaman. E hindi naman yun kaya
ng counterpart ng community.

So 3-5months provided that yun lang ang gagamitin ng provincial delineation team.
Pero kung may ibang ginagawa, di nya matatapos agad.

How do you validate the genealogy since the consideration is given by word of mouth
of IPs are there any anthropological issue? Ah key informants sa mga matatanda, I
would say na bihira naming pagdudadahan ang kanilang sinasabi dahil these are
cultural bearers and masters. And since time immemorial they have been practicing,
these cuture and ancestors nila andon. And how do we validate? By testimonies of
their communities. Ah yung sinsabi sa IPRA na self ascription and ascription by
others. So ssasabihin ng group na ito na ito kami, Aeta Abulen kami. So yung karatig
na community sasabihin na sila yan. So ascription by self and others. Second,
anthropological data, supported naman yan sa mga naunag documentation about their
culture. Kung aeta yan nandyan si William, yung mga bago bago sila Fox, at Reid sa
language ng mga aeta. So lumabas yon, yung testimony nila ay navavalidate ng ga
katabi nilang communities na mga Aeta din at navavalidate supported by secondary
data, mga old ethnographies. So yun ang pagvavalidate naming.

How do you validate genealogy? Malaki ang problema naming ng pagvavalidate ng

genealogy sa mga aeta kasi mayroong bahagi ng kultura nila na bawal magrecall ng
pangalan ng mga namatay na ancestor. There was a time na itong mga aeta natin ang
practice nila, ang Gawain nilang mga aeta, pag may aeta ibabalot sa balat ng punong
kahoy, ilalagay sa ilalim ng bahay at iiwan na ang bahay. And will not speak of his or
her name again kasi taboo. So yung genealogy nila affected dahil may mga ganung
kultura. Dito sa amin, sabi five generations. Ang mga aeta ang nanay at tatay naalala
nila yan, ang lolo at lola naalala pa, pero after ng lolo at lola di na kayang balikan. So

196
paano vinavalidate? Actually walang validation na kailangang gawin dahil hindi nga
nila maalala so nagrerely kami sa ibang documentary proofs sa habang hinhihingi na
proof ng guideline nation. Testimony, secondary data, natural landmark at boundaries
na silang nagtanim, so that’s how we validate yung kanilan information.

How do you solve these? Yun na nga, kung yung lack of data sa genealogy mahirap
isolve yan unless magimbento sila ng pangalan which is hindi naman dapat. So kesa
mag imbento sila, we leave it at that, kung ilan ang kaya nilang maalala its okay, sabi
naman sa guideline any of the following. Pero ang ginagawa ng NCIP ay finufulfill
lahat ng requirements para masaturate pa. dilemma din ito sa commission e, sabi any
of the following pero kung titignan mo yung recog book may testimony na nga may
documentation ka pa. lahat lahat, parang part ng mga IP at mga tao naming sa field ay
bakit namin pahihirapan ang mga IP e karapatan naman nila yan. Pero kami naman sa
kabilang banda, para masaturate nga ang ownership nila.

How do you evaluate the authenticity of the documents submitted by the IPs? By
triangulation, we interview more than 3 informants, employ 3 tools and ascription by
others and data. Doon mahuhuli mo na may inconsistencies, may inaccuracy kase
there are claims naman na doubtful din kami.

Mayroon kaming tinatawag na conflict resolution sa boundary, everytime na

magcocnduct ng Social Mobilization part. Kapag nagdelineate kami ng aera ng IPs
involved pati sila. Kailangan aware ang both parties, lahat ng stakeholders sa
boundary. Maamaze ka kasi nagagree sila sa boundary na yun. So sa mga ganyang
bagay naming navavalidate ang claims, and if may magoverlap, we use conflict
resolution. Paggather ng mga elder at sino baa ng nagsasabi ng totoo at eventually ay
lalabas din. Very crucial ang roles ng elders.

What are the conflicts? Is the elders that mostly settle conflicts.

So ayun sa boundary, at sa kultura nagkakaconflict. So kung saan sila generation

nagmumula dun din nababase ang mga interpretation nila. Yung changes sa kultura.
Then conflict din ang leadership, yung Indigenoous ppoltical structure. Pinagtatalunan
yan. Ang alam ng mga IPS, ano ba at sino ba dapat ang lider. Hierarchical ba, linear,
yung gender roles. Yan noh. Yan ang inaayos ng mga elders. Minsan din naman ay
mas sound ang sinsabi ng batang lider per kasi yun nga ibang generation ang
pinagagalingan.

How do you solve the differences? Yun na nga wisdom of elders. Hindi lahat kayang
isolve ng customary law but the IPRA guidelines for delineation of titling laing
ginigiit na its always the customary law. So we give rprimacy the customary law. Pag
hindi kaya ay dun lang papasok si NCIP.

197
Major Problems ay delay sa registration ng CADT, ano pa ba ah yung opposition of
other enitites like LGU. Pero sa Lima wala naming opposition, im speaking of
general. Bakit? Dahil may interes sila sa lupa kaya pala ang dami nilang tanong. Saka
yung general public, di nila alam yung ancestral domain title. Nagkaroon kaming
stakeholders forum tapos sabi ng mga taga DENR, may ganyan pala?

So ayun aang mga problems, matagal, maraaming kausap, maraming dapat

konsultahin. Kung sa NCIP nga lang yan sabi ko sayo, tapos na yan ng 3months. Kaya
lang hindi ganoon, kailangan incosider ang ibang stakeholders din.

Jacob: Di ba sir ang inter agencies din po ay nagdadag sa delay?

Sir Kevin: Ay oo, sabi nga sa forum ay NCIP lang ang naghohonor daw sa JAO. Noh
kaya may call for the abolition of JAO. Pero sa case namin JAO is working, ok yung
JAO. There is nothing wrong wth jao it is there to safeguard the role of NCIP, thr
problem lies sa implementation ng JAO. We follow JAO, na sasakanila nay un kung
gaano sila kabilis rumespunde.

[End of Recording]

198
 APPENDIX K
NCIP Region 3 Office Interview Transcription

MARCH 19, 2018

San Fernando City, Pampanga
Regional Office
Randie S. Bacani (Chief Administrative Officer)
Administrative and Financial Service Division
_____________________________________________________________________

Sir: Mga Joint Administrative Order … pero yung pinaka-imporatante doon ay mga
delineation and titling na nag-ooverlap sa trabaho ng ibang agency particularly DENR
at DAR,tapos yung registration ay sa LRA.

To give you parang capsule ng JAO na yun na administrative order. In the event, na
yung mga sinusukat naming ancestral domain overlaps with other tenurial instruments
with other agencies, we resolve it first on the pinaka ground level, which is the
provincial level - the provincial office of the NCIP, DENR and DAR at tsaka yung sa
LRA. If we cannot resolve it, iniaakyat lang namin sa regional level. Pag hindi pa
maresolve doon, we go to the top level. Ganoon lang naman yung pinaka ano nun
pero usually nagkakaproblema ang two agencies sa amin, ang DAR at DENR, kapag
may naissue na silang title na pinapatong namin sa ancestral domain. Ang
pinakamahirap lang kasi doon , may mga, ayoko namang sabihin, may mga issued
titles na fraudulent. When I mean fraudulent kung minsan magtataka ka ang mga
beneficiaries, halimbawa sa DAR ang mga beneficiaries wala naman doon. We make
legal actions on that. Pwedeng sa DENR, kung minsan ang mga titles ay patung-
patong rin. So nagkaroon ng agreement din na actually up to now, on-going pa rin
yung mga conversation namin na from time to time may ginawa na ngang committee
sa taas to talk on that. Meron silang inaadapt na sistema particularly ang LRA para
iproject lahat yung mga titles ng iba’t ibang agencies kasi I’m sorry hindi ako
partikular sa system na ginagamit ng mga geodetic engineers. Ang ginagawa nila
ngayon is ano na eh … ang problema kasi basta magsusubmit ang DENR papaano
niya sa LRA, ang DAR din meron, kami meron. Pag-ano ng LRA parang patung-
patong sila lahat ganoon kaya nagkakaroon ng problema so we made it a point na
NCIP before mo ipasa sa LRA, ipaproject mo muna sa DENR. Ikaw naman DENR
bago ka mag-issue tenurial instrument ipaano mo rin muna sa NCIP. Yun yung
naririnig niyo na kailangan munag magrelease ng CNO kada agency (Certificate of
Non-Overlap) which is nagpapatagal so nakita ko sa ano mo ang nagpapatagal yata
yung JAO sa issuance ng aming CADT, in a way tama yun kasi we cannot issue a
CADT ng walang CNO sa DENR which was fair because wala ring CNO sa DAR.
Ang nangyari kasi before, we only issue title na kabuuan. By the way the process of
delineation and titling is, inexplain na ba sa inyo ni Kevin? Yung self-delineation na
ginagawa ng mga IPs.

199
Lahat: Yes po

Sir: Pag sinukat nila buo di ba? Eh merong titled property rito. May titled property
rito. Ang sa geodetic system kasi hindi naman pwedeng iganon ganon yung title
niyan, tapos buta-butas. Hindi pala pwedeng ganon. Ang geodetic system pala ay
parang parcelas yang ganon. And we have a problem with that. Ang ginawa ngayon
ng mga agencies nga ay nag-arrive doon sa mga JAO which hindi pa ganoon
kaconclusive. When we say, like ano, hindi pa siya kumbaga meron ngang JAO pero
hindi pa rin maharmonize ng todo kaya continuous yung mga pag-uusap sa top level.
Ang aming opisina nga mula lumabas yung JAO no. 2 yata yun, iilan pa lang ang
naparegister namin sa LRA. Wee had a problem kasi ang DAR at DENR, hindi sila
nag-iisue sa amin basta-basta ng certificate of non-overlap. Pero naiintinidihan naman
namin kasi nag- something din sila lagi, kasi ang dami nilang … nakapunta na ba
kayong DENR? Yung sa kanila o sa LRA man lang?

Jacob: sa regional po, yung isa po naming groupmate

Tei: yung isa po naming groupmate nag-iinterview mo sa agencies

Sir: Nakapag-interview kayo roon?

Jacob: Yug isa pong kagroupmate namin

Sir: Yung kasamahan niyo? Anong feedback nila sa LRA?

Tei: ah currently po gingawa yung interview

Sir: ah sige para mareconcile niyo, actually magaganda yung kanilang sistema kaya
lang hindi nakareconcile sa ginawa namin. Gayundin siguro sa amin dahil
magkakaiba eh lalo na naguluhan sila sa sistema namin kasi nga pag nagsukat kami
ng ganoon buo tapos igaganon namin may mga naka-overlap na mga inissue nilang
title. Ang DAR nga, biruin mo ang DAR nga bigla na lang, ito yung title na inissue
naming CADT kung minsan yung DAR nakapatong siyang ganoon o yung mga
naissue nilang, anong tawag nga sa mga inissue nila? Ano? Tenurial instrument.
Nagkakaroon kami ng problema kasi walang naiproject na hindi namin na
naipaproject sa kanila dati hindi kasi kasama sa proseso namin bigla na lang nilang
sasabihin na hindi po pwede yan kasi ano na po yan declare na po na agrarian land
yan o sakop na po ng CARP namin. Ayun to the point na nagkakasuhan kami. Ako
nga when I was in Mindoro yung ancestral domain doon, there was a mother title na
issue ng DAR na nakapatong sa buong ganyan ng ancestral domain tapos when I
checked the beneficiaries kasi may mother title lang yung DAR eh na iissue noon.
Halimbawa, 200 beneficiaries o 100 beneficiaries. Dapat kasi ang sistema ng DAR
ang beneficiary ay mga nakaposisyon sa mga lupa ganoon yung sa DAR eh para

200
icultivate nila. E wala naman, makikita mo halimbawa Randy Bacani nandoon
nakapangalan wala namang taong ganoon doon. Nagkakaroon kami ng problema o
siyempre although we are in the same umbrella mga government agencies, extra
careful rin kami sa mga ginagwa naming legal actions. Sinasampahan rin kasi kami ng
mga kaso. Same rin sa kanila, sinampahan din nila kami ng kaso kapag nakita nila na
kung minsan inaabuso rin ang self-delineation. Kung baga kung minsan, ito lang yung
inaano lang nga mga katutubo ang talagang area nila, gagawin nila sasakupin nila ang
buo ito para lumaki dahil self-delinetion nga so it’s a matter of ano nga ano na lang
harmonization nung aming hindi lang yung mga nakasulat naming mga rules and
regulations na ginagawa namin pati yung kung paano namin iimplement yung mga
yoon. Nagkakaproblema kami sa mga ganoon and so far sa ngayon nagiging hadlang,
sinasabing nagiging hadlang yung JAO in so far as yung finalization at issuance ng
title concern pero meron namang mga naiissue sa aming mga title kasi pag ganon
bubusisiin talaga noon sa Ancestral Domain Office namin sa central office yung
pagsegrate ng mga titled properties, iniisa-isa namin. Mahirap kasi rin yun, biruin mo
sa isang 10 hectares ang mga titles o di ba alam niyo na naman yung mga titles 200
square meters, 300 biruin mo tuldok-tuldok yan na ano and yung pagsegrate niyan is
not that easy kasi kailang precisely. That’s where we had a problem with ano DENR,
DAR and LRA, so ngayon hindi ko makita folder ko eh nandoon yung mga
panibagong ginagawa namin pakikipag-usap sa taas para sa kumbaga pinapolish pa
rin namin yung aming mga administrative order para sa reconciliation ng aming mga
ginagawa. It is a continuous process kasi hindi siya biglaang. Yun lang naman ang
JAO, yun yung yung pinaka- gist niya para sa kaalaman ninyo. Ano pabang mga
katanungan niyo diyan iho? Position as chief admin?

Jacob: opo

Sir: chief admin ako sa mga operations ng office. I see to it na lahat ng mga finances
sa mga field namin ay ibinababa namin at tsaka siyempre yung proper flow ng aming
finances yun yung pinaka ano ko at siyempre yung maintainance ng office namin at
tsaka hawak ko rin yung human resource yung mga personnel so yung employee
organization namin at tsaka yung how to maintain yung integrity tsaka yung
accomplishment ng office namin. Pero more on technical ibang yung sa technical
yung paano na na yung ginawa na nila is hindi ko na actually concern. Actually it is
the concern of the TMS Chief namin, yung kanina yung kausap niyo si Kevin, siya
yung planning officer namin siya yung may overview lahat ng mga data

Jacob: yung mga iniimplement sa baba?

Sir: ako alam ko rin in a gist pero more on mga finances ng mga project na iyon ako
ay may hawak so yung mismong mga ginagawa na nila, I can meron akong general
knowledge sa kabuuan ng ginagawa namin pero I understand meron tayong mga
gustong mga malamang data on the status nung ibang project namin sa ibang
provinces, tama ba?

201
Jacob: CADT lang po ng sa Limay at sa Botolan?

Sir: did you get the data from those projects?

Tei: nakita na po namin yung recognition book?

Sir: Ah yung recognition book. Limay for deliberation yung actually. For approval na
yun sa aming central office. After that yung yung pag okay na yun yung time na
ipinapaproject namin sa DAR, DENR, LRA yung aming sinukat so ibang bakbakan
na naman iyon. Ibang proseso pa iyon.

Jacob: Sir yung sa mga funding po ng mga CADT, ganoo po siya katagal para
magkaroon ng funding, for example, sa Limay po? Para mafund po yung CADT
application nila?

Sir: Ang funding kasi, siyempre pag-uusapan muna yung kaniyang Working
Financial Plan niya di ba? Example sa Limay CADT, for example lang kung 1 million
yun kung within a year sasabihin ng provncial office na ito lang yung mga activties na
iconduct for this year kasi maraming component iyon, maraming activities. For this
year ang sinabi niya is 300,000 lang, ito lang yung mga kaya naming iconduct na
activities for this year that will need 300,000 lang that will be requested to the central
office ginagawa ng planning which will be reflected in our GAA, yung ating General
Appropriations Act. Kung sinasabi mo na ganoo katagal, that will depend. Actually
every year pwede pondohan yan kung kaya mong tapusin yung isang buong paka-
CADT ng isang taon pwede mong irequest kaagad yun pero youhave to make sure na
magagawa mo. Yearly the budget will be allocated depending on the target na inano
mo for that fiscal year, nagets niyo no? So every year may funds siya. Every year.
Yearly pinopondohan siya kung kaya mong tapuusin ng dalawang taon bihakin mo sa
dalawa yung fund, kalahati-kalahati. There are certain activities na beyond your
control na, hindi mo pwedeng itarget yung mga activities na hindi mo, halimbawa
yung issuance ng title yung CADT hindi mo pwedeng itarget yun ng within a month,
eh kailang mo nga ng CNO sa DENR, sa LRA, eh hindi niya inaksyunan ng dalawang
taon o ano ka na under accomplishment ka na.Yung tinarget mo hindi mo nakuha so
you do not target beyond your means ganoon sa government ngayon per parcena na
yung pagtatatarget ng trabaho tapos yung pagbibigay ng pondo base lang sa tinarget
mo. Pagkanaman nagtarget ka hindi mo nakuha within a span of time tatamaan yung
accomplishment mo meron paggrade. You’re aware of di ano di ba? Yung mga ano?
Perofrmance system na ginagamit ang government, yun yung ginagradan mo yung
mga employees so yung tinarget mo hindi mo nakuha bagsak ka. Ganoon yun so
every fund, every activity is funded based on your targets kada unit man yun.
Halimbawa, sa inyo Bataan di ba? The NCIP Provincial Office of Bataan will target
that particular activity for this year and the government will allocate fund for that.
Make sure that you will utilize that fund and you will meet that target. So every year

202
may fund yan. There are certain projects n hind na nafufund bakit kanyo? Ang
government ang naallocate lang, halimbawa, ang narequest lang naming budget sa
NCIP is sa kabuuan sa buong Pilipinas is yung recent na 2018 is 1.2 billion pesos that
wil linclude lahat ng mga sahod ng mga empleyado, lahat nga mga projects niya, yung
maintainance ng mga opisina kung minsan kapag something nila kulang na yung
inimplement na project kung minsan yung mga project na prinopose mo hindi na
napopondohan. There are times na may ganoon, as I experienced 2012 o 2013 yata
hindi napondohan yung isa kong project dahil wala nang maibigay ang gobyerno pero
there are priorities so mapaparioritize ka kung ano yung gustu mong unahain yung
lang sa funding ng mga government project. CADT kasi.

Jacob: Sir yung ano po, in terms po sa projection, gagawa po ng projection yung
NCIP po and then isusubmit sa DAR and DENRpara po sa CNO, mostly po gaano po
katagal bago bumalik from DENR, DAR pa NCIP po?

Sir: To tell you meron kaming pinapaproject sa DENR, 2013 sa awa ng diyos wala pa
hanggang ngayon. That is CNO, we are waiting just for the CNO. Atleast may ideya
kayo so ikaw na magsabi kung gaano katagal we cannot say.

Jacob: Sir ano po yung medyo nagiging reason ng DENR or DAR kung bakit hindi
pa rin nila nilalalabas yung CNO?

Sir: ang sinabi nila noon masyadong rigid yung gagawin para mag-issue lang sila ng
basta-basta tapos maraming factor, may mga areas na ito yung CADT, okay lang ito
may mga titles ito mayroong kaso nasa RTC, ito nasa sabihin nating nasa LRA yung
kaso may mga ganoon, tapos ito under claim ng government, ng isang munisipyo o ng
probinsya CADT buo. Hindi ko rin masisi ang DAR and DENR hindi nila masabi lalo
na ang LRA hindi naman sasabihin ng LRA na CNO po ito when in fact there are
existing cases. O diba intindihin din natin sila eh kasi kapag nag-issue sila ng CNO eh
di stop na sila. Nagissue na sila ng CNO that not the way our government. Siyempre
maraming factors na kinconsider kaya nga sabi ko sa inyo it is a continuous
harmonization of our processes and our jurisdiction, patuloy yan malay nga ba nila na
there would be an NCIP who would issue tile ng ancestral domain. Yun yung
kabuuang istorya. Ganon. May mga tenurial instrument ng DENR yung CBFM,
FLGA, yung Community Based Forest Management, Forest Land and Grazing
Agreement iba pa ito sa mga title na inissue ng DENR, meron ito binibigyang
authority sa mga community na idevelop ang land area. Lately nga sa Clark
Development Authoruty meron nga akong nakita na pinut up ng government. Subic
Development Authority (SDA), this was given on the time of Marcos. Nag-iisue rin
ito ng mga title, sakit na naman sa ulo namin, sa mga abogado naming. Ayung mga
factors kaya nagtatagal ang pag-issue nila sa amin ng CNO.

Tei: Sir in relation po sa tanong niya na sa mga partner agencies nga po nagkakaroon
ng delay parang what actions ang ginagawa ng NCIP para matap or mapabilis?

203
Sir: The NCIP kagaya ng sabi ko that is beyond our control na. We in the NCIP, we
stand witg our mandate yung kasi identification, yung pinakaano kasi naming is the
identification of ancestral domain. The fact that we identified the ancestral domain as
a kabuuan, what matter to us is naiidentify yung ancestral domain yung kabuuan nun
na kanila, kung meron naman na ihihiwalay diyan it is up those na ihiwalay yan. The
CADT is just formal recognition. Would you believe that the ancestral domain, there
are indigenous communities in northern part of Luzon na ayaw nila ng CADT, ang
gusto lang nila nasukat alam na nila ang ancestral domain nila. Bakit pa kami mag-
kaCADT? It is merely a paper, this our land. On the principle that they are the
owners of that land unless iargue mo na o patunayan mo with evidence na hindi kanila
yun. Ang sa amin the fact na nasukat, nadelineate naming yun there will be mag-
iispring out mga claimants niyan, individual man yan, private. Meron nga kami
sinukat sa Floridablanca na nabuklod alam niyo yung Camachile that is 8000 hectares
ng sinukat naming way back in 2006, it turned out na yung 3000 hectares is titled.
Okay lang sige, tanggalin na eh di meron pa silang 5600 yata it turned out ngayon
nagsusubmit ang DAR ng mga titled ang damin, ano nang mangyayari sa amin, noong
prinoject naming wala eh ngayon merong panibago. Whether we like it or not mag-
iisipring talaga. Ang DENR, and DAR kapag nag-issue na sila ng CNO ibig sabihin
final na yun baka maistop na sila, baka magkamali sila kaya as accurate as possible as
it can be gusto nila kapag nagissue na sila ng CNO talagang sigurado tnggal na lahat.
Ang problema baka tatanggalin nila lahat yung ancestral domain, yun yung
kinakatakot nila, ayawa din naming mangyari. So far ngayon, nasa kanila ang burden
of proof, patunayan nila huwag naman kami ang mag extra effort para sabihin na ito
nga yung mga titled properties na kailangan tapos patunayan nila. Alam naman
naming yung kalakaran, alam namin na may mga hocus pocus pero baka kasi may
mga ganon, yun yung mahirap na iniiwasan din natin so it is a matter of reconciliation
ng aming mga ginagawa yun yung pinaka-mahirap sa aming ginagawa

Jacob: Sir yung sa JAO po somehow nagdadagdag siya ng delay sa process ng CADT
sa opinion niyo po ba necessary po ba yung JAO?

Sir: the JAO is necessary kasi nga if you remove that process or regulation na
nandoon ay magiging chaotic. In 2004 or 2005, the first ancestral domain issued
which was CADT ng Karahume in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. Naiissue yung title,
awarded by no less than GMA walang segregation from DAR, DENR, LRA ngayon
ng community has the impression na sa kanila na yung buong ancestral domain and
that they have the total ownership of the whole land amounting to around 1800
hectares. It turned out na ang daming parse-parselang mga owners na nagsulputan.
Ang gusto kasi nila it takeover yung buong 1800 eh ang dami palang private owners,
ang gulo may mga namatay pa doon, magulo siya kasi nga walang projection.
Siyempre the hardest part is explaining to the community na although we have the
ownership of the ancestral domain, we should respect the existing property rights
before the issuance of IPRA, ang batas ng NCIP. 1997 naipasa ang IPRA, lahat ng

204
mga naissueng title before 1997 they should be respected. Sa mga katutubo, the
hardest part is paano mo ieexplain sa kanila na lahat ng mga iyon na naissue ay
kailangan ihiwalay na. Pero sinabi nila na NCIP hindi amin yung 1800 pero may mga
nagkaclaim dito, hindi pwede yan makikipagpatayan kami so very chaotic. Baka
magkaroon ng mga civil disobedience dahil sa ganon at meron ngang ganon. Kanya-
kanya yung mga LGU diyan, sa simbahan din, marami pinasok na mas magulo. Okay
lang iyon but there should be technical support, hindi ganon kadali pagsegregate tsak
pag-identify ng existing property rights sa loob. Tenurial instruments issued by DAR,
DENR and other agencies na nagiissue ng tenurial instrument. Even LRA is still
coming up with a system. The last time I attended our parang joint session ng mga
tungkol sa JAO. LRA is coming up with a system engaging the services of a private
entity regarding delineation which experts of the geodetic engineer, may mga paraan
silang ginagawa. Yun pala yung magandang development and that will entail a lot of
budget. Ganon talaga ang mga technical expertise, ang mga agencies, halimbawa
kami, kaunti lang mga geodetic engineer ditto sa region, we only have two. Sa mga
provinces, hindi lahat ng provinces may mga geodetic engineers. Ilang hektarya ang
sinusukat naming, 1 million hectares, ilang geodetic engineers lang meron tapos sila
rin yung aasahan magsegregate. We cannot do it, mahirap din. Naiinitindihan naming
yung mga engineers mahirap talaga ang trabaho.

Jacob: sa JAO po necessary siya para hindi magkaroon ng chaos and para marespect
yung existing parties before IPRA po pero at some point po nagkakaroon rin ng
confusion, and yung JAO po mismo ang nagpapatagal particularly sa DAR and
DENR. In your opinion po ba saan nagkakaroon ng problem? Sa NCIP po ba o sa
inter-agencies?

Sir: Sabi ko nga how do we reconcile yung aming process ditto, NCIP, DENR, DAR
and LRA. Doon sa reconciliation nagkakaroon ng problema.

Jacob: pero yung NCIP po yung parang talagang may mandate ng ancestral domain.

Sir: in terms of ancestral domain pero within the ancestral domain may mga property
rights issued by DENR, and according to our law we need to respect that. Kaya
merong konting clash cause you need to fully harmonize yung parang hindi pa ganoon
kaswak ang mga policies. It is a free country kaya lang we need to abide with existing
rules. Kasi our government nga is a government of laws and not of men, gusto man
natin gawin yung ating mandate but we cannot do it without going throught the
mandate of other agencies, kailangan daan natin iyon. Gaya ng sinabi ko if you are
saying na the JAO is somehow the cause of the bottleneck of the CADT, so what?!
That is only a CADT, it is just a mere formal recognition. That’s what I’m telling you,
it is just a paper pero yung ownership ay nasa katutubo na di ba? Unless you prove
your evidence na sa inyo ito pero as long as wala ka lahat ng naidentify is lahat yan sa
mga katutubo kasi we will be, ipipilit na natin, we should issue the CADT kahit
walang CNO from DAR and DENR, mahirap yun. We will be parang nasa area tayo

205
ng lawlessness kapag ganoon. We should respect other agencies pero as much as we
our concerned, as much we want to clear all things eh we cannot do it by ourselves,
kailangan katulong din naming sila. So kung sila may problema sa amin, kami may
problema sa kanila okay lang as long as we have our mandate to stand on di ba? We
have identified our ancestral domain and we have given or manifested our stand na
this is our ancestral domain. This our owned by the IPs themselves so nasa ibang
agency na lang yan pero makikita ninyo talking with other agencies. Yung
impression nila sa NCIP is kami ang nagpapabagal sa kanila sigurado yun. Not only
in titling, one aspect lang yang titling, marami pang programs and projects ang ibang
agencies na tinataman din namin lalo na yung kanilang mga mining. Yung mga
inissue nilang forest management agreement dumadaan kasi sa amin yan pero there
are instances na nirerecognize nila yung opisina namin. Kumukuha sila ng clearance
pero yung iba sa mga project nila hindi na nakakadaan sa opisina namin. Are you
aware of the National Greening Project? That is the project ng government, ng DENR
lahat ng mga area na pwedeng tamnan, tatamnan. Ganoo ang ano ng National
Greening Project, laki ng budget niyan. The DENR is the agency that is task to do that
kaya lang may mga ancestral domain and may mga nstance na hindi na sila dumadaan
sa amin although sige hindi na kayo dumaan sa mismong proseso pero kailangan kahit
papaano ipagpaalam niyo sa amin. Minsan napapabayaan na basta wag lang totally
isantabi yung mga IPs, minsan kasi napapabayaan na, naiistspwera na. Yun lang yung
sa amin so tanong mo nasa iyo na iyon kung sinasabi mo na ang JAO ang ano pero as
far as we are concern tuloy pa rin yung pag-identify namin sa ancestral domain. Kung
ayaw nila maissue yung CADT naming so what?! Ang sa amin nandoon na ang
ancestral domain, there are ancestral domain na walang CADT. CADT is not the last
resort, formal recognition lang naman yang CADT. Alam naman ng IP yung
hangganan nila pero siyempre we are in the modern world when you transact on
anything, saan ang papel mo? Kailangan CADT di ba? Yun ba yung naiisip ninyo?
Dahil nga it’s not that easy, kami sa NCIP, we are living with our principles kng
talagang may mga ganyang cases which kapag sa gobyerno kasi kapag sa public
service kasi meron at meron talagang ganyan pero our mandate does not end there.
Wala lang CADT, wala na kaming gagawin. Title lang iyon marami pa kaming
trabaho, may ADSDPP pa kami, meron pa kaming mga IPMRs. Naexplain ba yung
IPMRs? Ang ibig sabihin ng IPMRs ay Indigenous People Mandatory
Representatives, itong mga lugar na may ancestral domain, pinapaupo naming ng
isang konsehal, naririnig niyo yun di ba? Sa Floridablanca, si Roy Bacani kamag-anak
ko pa iyon, hindi ka-Bacani ko lang, napa-upo nain as IPMR. That is one way of
strengthening and promoting the rights of the IPs. Pinapaupo ko naman yung IPMR
dito sa probinsya ng Pampanga biruin mo magkakaroon ng Aeta na bokal sa
probinsya ng Pampanga same powers authority sahod kapantay nila, that is one way
kaya nga yang CADT hindi diyan nagtatapos trabaho namin. Finofocus rin namin
diyan pero kung so far makikita namin na hindi pwede, okay lang pero we’re doing
our best, nakikipag-usap pa rin kami sa taas. May tanong pa ba kayo?

Tei: Last na lang po

206
Sir: Kayo wala ba kayong itatanong?

Mico: Wala po

Sir: Same as above yung sa inyo sa kanila. Magkakaklase ba kayo?

Lahat: Opo

Sir: Magkakagroup?

Lahat: Opo

Sir: Anong title ng ano niyo, ng thesis niyo?

Lance: Assessment of CADT Delineation Process

Jacob: Delineation and Recognition Process po. The cases of Limay and Botolan,
Zambales

Sir: ah may particular kayong instrument?

Lahat: Opo

Sir: akala ko in general. Limay and?

Jacob: Botolan

Sir: Botolan. Bataan and Zambales. Bakit hindi yung sa Florida yung inano mo?

Tei: nag-identify po kasi kami ng two comparable na places

Jacob: medyo halos same yung year ng application nila po

Tei: Nag-identify po kami na narelease na na CADT at hindi pa, na same yung date of
application

Sir: Sana inano niyo yung sa Mabalacat 025 and sa Porac, para makulay yung sa
report niyo kasi yun makulay ang mga CADT ditto sa Pampanga compared sa Limay
and Botolan. Kasi yung CADT 025 ang ancestral domain nila na 10,600, ito yung
Clark tapos ito yung SBDA, tapos ito yung mga nagkaquarry, patung-patong sila
diyan. Mas makulay ang kwento diyan, mas marami akong maikukuwento diyan kaya
lang yung sa Botolan, eh di na ano niyo yung tourist spot diyan sa Botolan, yung

207
tourist spot na sensational. Botolan CADT. Hindi masyado sa inyo, yung ano ni
mayora. So ano na ginawa niyo sa Botolan CADT?

Jacob: Magkoconduct po kami ng Focus Group Discussion next week sa mismong

Botolan

Sir: Ano yung huli mong tanong iha?

Tei: Namention niyo po na since 2013 ganyan nakatengga na siya, anong gingagwang
effort para mafollow up or maupdate dahil ng kasama nga sa mandate niyo yun.
Nagmumukhang NCIP ang inefficient.

Sir: Hindi rin. Sabi ko nga wala na sa amin ang bola, ang bola ay nasa DENR, LRA
kasi for ano na kami ngayon for issuance na ng title. Ipapaproject mosa DENR, after
projection tsaka lang sila mag-iissue ng CNO. Kagaya ng sinabi ko ikaw ang DENR
issue a CNO, may mga kaso na pending dito sa RTC, may pending claim dito, would
you issue a CNO? If you are the DENR? No di ba. You will not issue unless there are
certainties. Kasi nga kapag nag-issue ka yari ka. Tingnan mo rin yung perspective ng
kabila. Nag-issue sila ng CNO, panghahawakan ko na iyong CNO. Sir hindi pala may
kaso sa RTC hindi pala, hindi may CNO na o, kakasuhan kita nag-issue ka ng
certification, that is very vital sa lahat ng gagawing transaction. When issue
certification that means that cleared lahat. I kindly understand yung mga ganoong
cases. Yun yung mga unforessen scenario na kung minsan naooverlook lang. Ah hindi
NCIP hindi kasi ginagawa yan. DENR, maniwala ka sa mga iyan ayaw lang nila, may
perang involve kasi yan. We need to dig out the technicalities behind. Of course, you
cannot explain this thing sa ground. Pwede ko bang sabihin sa mga IPs na, Sir
kailangan po natin ng finalities of the judgment before we issue the CNO considering
the fact na. We canno say that to the ground and even sa media. Gusto mo basahin
naming yung mga cases, we cannot do that di ba? You are students, ganyan din ako
kapassionate. Malalaman niyo kapag nagwork na kayo hindi lang sa government
agency sa private din. Ano nga bang course niyo?

Lahat: Public Ad

Sir: Maganda yan. Prof niyo ba si ano, si Popoy?

Jacob: Sa grad po

Mico: Commissioner na po siya ng CHED

Sir: Acting Chair na siya. Ah sa gradauate studies, anong year niyo na? Fourth year?

Jacob: Last sem

208
Tei: This sem

Sir: Last sem niyo na, ano pang gingagawa niyo dito. Dapat nag-eenjoy na kayo

Jacob: May pa po graduation naming

Tei: June po

Lance: June

Jacob: January to June po second sem

Sir: Ilang months yung ano ng thesis niyo?

Tei: Isang sem po

Sir: Isang sem?

Lahat: yung data gathering po

Tei: Pangalawang sem na po namin ng thesis, tapos data gathering na po kami

Sir: Wala na kayong inaattendang ibang subject?

Lahat: Meron pa po

Jacob: same lang po sa last sem

Sir: Sa isang linggo, ilan ang naka-allott sa thesis niyo

Tei: Two meetings po

Sir: Two days in a week?

Tei: Meeting lang po yun kasama ng adviser naming pero hindi po kasama sa
schedule naming yung data gathering. Parang ngayong month po binigyan kami ng
time para mag-data gathering. Whole March

Sir: Dapat nagpipicture kayo

Tei: Ah magpipicture po

Sir: Pinicturan niyo ba si Kevin? Si Kevin na lang picturan niyo, ako wag na. Wala
namang kwenta yung sinabi ko. Sharing lang yung sa akin. I’m sharing this based on

209
experience. Marami akong gusting ididscuss na technicalities kaya lang hindi niyo
kailangan. Sa mga katulad niyo, yung mga general concept and side ng kada taong
nakausap niyo. Yun lang yung mahalaga. Meron pa ba kayong itatanong?

Jacob: Yung sa JAO po ba nagkaroon na ng effort na from secretary to secretary,

regional director to regional director yung communication since may JAO na naman
po para mapabilis. Dito sa Region III, once lang dito sa regional. Mahirap kasi yung
change ng mga tao sa taas, iba na naman ang chairman naming, secretary ng DENR
paiba-iba rin, same din sa mga regional directors. Yung directo ko 2016 lang siay
umalik, after 2013-2014 nandito siya, 2015-2016 wala siya. Paiba-iba rin, as much as
possible nireresolve namin sa provincial level, sa ground level. Huwag kayong
magpapaniwala sa JAO na yan. We follow lang what is written. Pero it is a
continuous effort and harmonization. Okay? Kayong dalawa wala na kayong
itatanong?

Mico and Lance: Wala na po

Lahat: Thank you po!

[End of Recording]

210
 APPENDIX L
LRA Region 3 Office Interview Transcription

MARCH 19, 2018

San Fernando City, Pampanga
Regional Office
Mr. Butch Ragodon (Records Officer)
_____________________________________________________________________

Mr. Ragodon: Our jurisdiction strictly covers the province of pampanga except
Angeles City, Mabalacat, and Magalang wherein they have their own registry of
deeds while all others are covered by Pampanga.

Irerehistro namin yung mga titles na iniissue ng NCIP. We also have have the DENR
issuing titles pero yung registration ay sa amin. That is under the Presidential Decree
No. 1529 othewise known as the Land Registration Act.

Student: Ano po yung difference ng titles ng DENR and LRA?

Mr. Ragodon: Marami tayong differences, may mga untitled properties ready for
alienable and disposable and merong titles na ang DAR ang nagcocover na tinatawag
namin na decree. Ang galing sa DENR ay tinatawag naming patents.Yung mga
dumadaan sa courts, yung mga yan ay untitled properties pa yan.

Student: For the certification of ancestral domain titles, papaano po dumadaan sa

DAR and DENR?

Mr. Ragodon: Ancestral domains dumadaan sa kwan. Dati, ang pagkakaalam ko

DENR yan dahil sila ang nagcocover ng mga alienable and disposable lands
especially mga located sa bundok. Dati DENR yan ngayon pumasok ang NCIP sila na
yata ang humahawak niyan. Same is true sa Baguio, di ba meron tayong mga ancestral
domains, yung mga tribu-tribo.

Student: Gaano po katagal ang pagpa-process ng land titles?

Mr. Ragodon: Depende sa documents, optimal timeframe, depende, kapag

nagsabay-sabay – 15 working days. Pero kapag 8k; maliit lang yung Pampanga pero
maraming transaction – 15 working days, pero kapag walang masyadong trabaho –
maximum of 5 days. Magsisimula yan mula simula hanggang dulo ng pagpoproseso
ng land titles – other processing. Kasi ang nagkukuha ng titulo ay NCIP, iba yung
titulo hindi katulad ng regular titles. Kasi yung samin, e-titles na kami. Di na kami

211
nagpprint ng hard copies, mga original copy of title. Only, Honor certificate Titles
nalang binibigay. Unlike other agencies, nagre-release yan ng original land titles.

Student: Kailan po nagsimula yung e-titles?

Mr. Ragodon: 2010. Nagbibigay pa ba ng hard copy? Hindi na, depende sa coverage
ng title, for the community, hard copy. Yung committee yung humahawak, ex.
Floridablanca, maaaring council, tapos hard copy. Hindi covered ng e-titles yung
ancestral domain.

Student: Bakit hard copy?

Mr. Ragodon: Hindi nakaparepare ang LRA for that especially maraming land titles
na iniissue yung other insti. May mga copy pa rin sila ng land title na sinasubmit for
registration

Student: Gaano katagal yung verification ng existing land titles?

Mr. Ragodon: Actually and documentation aysa NCIP, ang samin ay registration
lang.

May naranasan na po ba kayong nakaranas na ng problem sa ancestral domain ng

Pampanga? As of now, wala pa. sa other province, meron. Yung issue dito sa Tarlac,
parang nage-encroach dito sa Pampanga. Of course, kung alin yung borderline ng
Pampanga, siya lang yung samin.

Student: May nararanasan na po ba na nagkaroon ng problema sa ancestral domain

area ng Pampanga?

Mr. Ragodon: Walang nag-aarise, kapag specific yung coordinates na binigay,

walang problem. Involved din kasi ang DENR kasi sila ang nag-iidentify ng location
ng property, kapag nakita nila na okay, okay na din yon. Kapag nagsolve ng conflict,
nakikipag-cooperate pa rin kami, kapag pumasok na sa court ang conflict kami ang
nagpprovide ng information and then doon na magbe-base ang court kung papano
mag-iissue ng documents. Technically, archiving lang.
Quarterly meetings, diyan dumadaan kung ano ang problema ng NCIP, tulad ng sa
Tarlac, pinag-uusapan naming with DAR.

Ministerial lang ang duty naming, meaning kung ano lang ang sinubmit samin, yun
lang ang ipaprocess naming, isa pa lang yung titulo na naissue sa Pampanga, yan yung
Floridablanca at parte ng Porac.

212
Registered vs issued? Issued and registered, nasa jurisdiction nanamin. Kapag na
issue pa lang pero hindi pa registered, kailangan pa ba ng recommendation ng NCIP?
Sila ang nagrerecoomenda and sila din yung nagta-transmit samin.

213
 APPENDIX M
DENR Region 3 Office Interview Transcription

MARCH 19, 2018

San Fernando City, Pampanga
Regional Office
Mr. Robert S. Tan
Survey and Mapping Division
_____________________________________________________________________

Categorization ng titled properties ng DENR – actually makikita yan sa section

namin, ang makikita lang natin dito ay yung pumasok na surveys. Then cadastral
surveyed lands, makikita din. Yun yung main duties naming.Yung survey ng NCIP,
yung mga public domains and ancestral domains, kapag dinala dito with technical
description, ipaproject naming through our cadastral map, then through that, we’ll
find out yung mga nakapasok and di nakapasok then a certification will be issued.

Nirerefer daw po ng DENR yung other issues re benficiaries ng DAR, papaano

kinocoordinate, from that certification, yung NCIP na yung magcocoordinate sa DAR,
hindi na kami. We will issue a certification na nakapasok na surveys, doon iidentify
mo na kung manggagaling sa DAR, then manggagaling sa NCIP then kapag nakita na
may DAR property doon, pupunta ang NCIP sa DAR. Bali babalik muna sa NCIP
then deretso. Kung magkakaroon ng dialogue, then ang mag-iinitiate ay NCIP.

Gaano katagal ang issuance ng certification? Di naman tumatagal, mga two weeks to
a month.

May involved po bang physical process? Office work lang. basta magpoprovide lang
ng technical description ang NCIP.

Laman ng documents? Actually sila yung magveverify, from our certification, naka-
tabulate then magrerequest sa records for plans, minsan sa DAR magrerequest. Tapos
magrerequest din ang DAR, ipapasa samin. Kapag may records kami, ipa-furnish
namin. Pagkakaalam ko, sila magpa-plot, titignan nila kung talagang nakapasok yan,
then after that, gagawa sila ng amended plan, ipapasok sakin for final projection.

Nasabi po ng DAR na initially ang public lands ay sa DENR, tapos sa amended ay

pumasok sa DAR, tama po ba? Beneficiaries ng DRB. Before yung NCIP diba ay
gagawa ng plano, minsan nauunahan na ng DAR eh, ang AR na ang mag-aano ng
lupa, kukuha sila ng beneficiaries doon. Huli nang darating, ipprocess yung ancestral
domtain, which is nandoon na yung DAR.

214
Since nag-arise po ng yung ganyang problem before, kalian pumasok yung DAR?
Before 2008 pa. matagal na yan. Since president pa si Marcos.

Kailan pumasok sa ancestral domain titling process?Nung nacreate na yan, dun pa

lang.

Conflict? Delineate and recognize yung ancestral domain titles? Yeah meron na,
actually yung sa bamban, yung inissue ni Gloria Arroyo. Sa Tarlac at Mabalacat.
Papano naaddress? Resolved na ata o nasa Congress. Series of meeting, iba-ibang
issues yan eh.
Acutally hindi, administrative.

Mostly three agencies lang, paminsan-minsan ang ang LRA, kasi sila lang naman ang
nagi-issue ng land titles eh. Inaayos muna sa three agencies then kapag naayos na,
LRA gagawa lang ng title yan.

Topic of conflict? Yung mga titled property within at mga nakikialam. Meron siyang
administrative order, silang dalawa yung ncip and yung tribes kung sino yung
nakapangalan.

Scope of dDENR function, based dun sa projection, yung mga alienable and
disposable and mga tenurial instrument na iniissue ng DENR and farm list di ba?

215
 APPENDIX N
DAR Region 3 Office Interview Transcription

MARCH 19, 2018

San Fernando City, Pampanga
Mr. Roger Lagman
ARPO II, Legal Division
Regional Office
_____________________________________________________________________

Mr. Lagman: Pumapasok lang yung DAR sa issue of CADT kapag may mga
affected na beneficiaries – Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries . Pero mainly and CADT,
wala kaming role na gagampanan kundi and DENR talaga yan

So kung papano po yung mga ARB ng DAR?

Mr. Lagman: With respect sa mga lands na kinocover ng DAR, but these are not
covered by CADT, these are covered by regular titles, private titles or public land that
are alienable and disposable. Meron silang kasunduan ng DENR na ang DAR na ang
mag-iissue na ng title ng areas na cover ng public land. Pero ang talagang jurisdiction
is with the DENR.

Sa context po ng CADT, may mga public lands sa Pampanga?

Mr. Lagman: Marami namang public lands diyan, mga bundok pero hindi natin
masasabi kung ilan at saan kasi hindi maibibigay yan ng regional office. You can get
that sa aming provincial or municipal office. As far as sa mga public lands kasi ang
mga keeper ng aming documents atsaka ang aming proseso na kung saan nag
eemanate yung pagpprocess ng mga titulo, pagcocover ng lands ay sa mga provincial
or MARO officers naming yan. Dito sa regional, we have here the operations officer
naming sa PARO. So ang sa tanong mo na yan ay we cannot categorically answer kasi
ang role na yan ay sa PARO at sa MARO.

Papano nagstart yung jurisdiction sa DAR, so kelan siya nagstart?

Mr. Lagman: Hindi ko masasabi kung kalian talaga specifically nagstart, kasi before
meron kaming issuances ng public lands ng OCT naming. Hindi ko na matandaan
specifically. Noong nagkaroon ng MOA with the DENR, sabi ng DENR sa’min lahat
yan so we have to give it us and huwag niyo nang iassume pagdating sa titling kasi
kami yan and samin yan.

216
Yung process ng identification ng public lands, kapag nagkaroon ng inquiry yung
NCIP sa office, gaano katagal yung pag-a-identify,

Mr. Lagman: Depende sa kung anong klaseng land ang vineverify, kung may mga
conflict kasi magreresearch pa kami. Karamihan kasi kapag NCIP pumupunta sa
DENR pagkatapos kapag pagkasabi ng DENR covered ito ng DAR, kapag sinabi niya
na covered ng beneficiaries doon kami pumapasok. Kung papano naming masasabi na
itong mga beneficiaries ba na ito ay pupwedeng iassume ng DAR para bigyan sila ng
CLOA or irerecommend naming sa DENR na ito yung mga beneficiaries, per as to the
specific recommendation kasi sa DENR, hindi naming masasabi kung yung
recommendation naming will be accepted as ay gospel truth ng DENR dahil sila ang
may jurisdiction nga eh. Perhaps it can give, it may somehow assist them sa
pagpprocess or pag-iissue nila ng identification ng mga potential beneficiaries nila
pero it’s not controlling on their part na ito yung mga dapat bigyan kasi sa kanila nga
iyon.
Not necessarily na lalapit pa siya sa DAR, Kapag ang NCIP ay lumapit sa DENR at
resolved na yung problema ng CADT, wala na kaming DAR. Pumapasok lang ang
DAR kapag may issue na nagcclaim na beneficiaries sila ng land na yon. Pinalalagay
nila sa ilalim ng programa ng agraryo. Kapag nakita ng DAR na ito ay ancestral
domain or part ng public land, upon our verification sasabihin na hindi naming
jurisdiction yon.

Maaari po bang malaman kung gaano katagal po yung period na kinoconsume ng

DAR kapag nagkaroon ng queries sa delineation and recognition?

Mr. Lagman: Sa delineation wala kaming masyadong role doon, as I have said a
while ago, hindi yan ang jurisdiction namin. With respect to the categorization of
lands, whether it is ancestral or public land, ang controlling talaga ay yung DENR.
Yung period di ko rin masabi kasi di naming role yung pagdedetermine ng ano eh,
kung nailatag sa amin yon, ibabato lang naming sa ibaba tapos kapag sinabi samin, Sir
Ancestral Domain ito, so ibibigay na namin sa agency.

So wala po talagang exact na period na pwedeng maibigay yung DAR?

Mr. Lagman: Kung simple communication, pwedeng ibase sa 15 working days

parang sa 6713, simple communication 15 days, pero kung if it involves research, it
will consume time, 30 days, 45 days, 60 days depende sa gravity and issue na ibinato
sa ahensya.

CADT talaga ang may role diyan ay NCIP and then tinitingnan nila yung inoccupy ng
indigenous peoples minsan kasi pumapasok siya as ancestral domain. Pumapasok lang
ang DAR kapag may issue of coverage kapag may mga ibang tao na pumasok at
pinapacover yung lupa. Kapag nakita naman naming na upon through research and

217
evaluation of documents, and we found out na the land is a public land or ancestral
domain under the jurisdiction of the NCIP, ibabato naming sa kanila yon.

Papano po nareresolve ang ganitong mga issue kapag nagkaroon po ng issue of

coverage?
Kapag ganoong issue hindi naming isosolve, irerefer muna naming sa DENR or
NCIP. You must remember kapag public lands ay wala na kaming jurisdiction doon.
As for the issue of coverage, sabi namin we cannot cover.

Papano naman po yung mga beneficiaries?

Mr. Lagman: Marami kaming inissue na OCT dati, yung mga Original Certificate
Titles na ni-CLOA naming like the case of Bataan and then we later found out na
yung area na ito ay part pala ng National Park. Yung mga iba ay pumapasok naman sa
ancestral domain. So ang ginawa ng DENR ay pinacancel yung mga inissue naming
CLOA sa court – sa DARAB adjudication. Yun ang usapin na kapag nagkakaroon ng
issue and we later found out na ang area pala ay ancestral domain ang gagawin
ngayon ng claimant ng sinumang ahensiya, magpa-file sila ng cancelation which the
DENR did way back in 1994. Kapag kasi ancestral domain yan, di yan dapat
pakialaman ng DAR kasi sa mga katutubo yan.

218
 APPENDIX O
Aeta-Magbukon Leader Key Informant Transcription

March 26, 2018

Botolan, Zambales
Apo Carling Dumulog
Aeta Tribe Leader
_____________________________________________________________________

Lance: Pwede pong magpakilala muna kayo

Sir: Ako po si Carling Dumulog. Tawag sa akin ay Apo Carling. May samahan kami,
ang samahan namin ay LAKAS ng mga katutubong Aeta ng Zambales. Dati akong
chairman ng LAKAS, ngayon isa nakong officer tungkol sa pagka-CADT.

Lance: Kailan po kayo nag-apply ng CADT? Ano pong panahon iyon?

Sir: Matagal na. Una CADC muna nung panahon ni President Ramos

Lance: Ah Ramos pa po

Sir: Tapos pagdating ni President Gloria Arroyo, CADT na. Tinatawag lahat ng aming
kasaysayan. Sa mga katutubo may tinatawag na lupaing ninuno na kung saan ay ito
yung mga dapat mai-survey at kailangan magkaroon ng title. Ang kasama sa mga ito
ay apat na barangay, sa kabuuan ng apat na barangay almost 16,000 hectares plus.
Yun po ang nai-award sa amin sa tribong Aeta ng Botolan sa may Pinatubo.

Lance: Gaano po katagal bago ma-appprove? Ilang taon po?

Sir: Matagal din. Sa totoo, napagdaanan si President Ramos, President Erap, tapos si
Gloria Arroyo.

Lance: Ang tagal nga po. Yung pagbigay niyo po ng requirements, paano po?
Mahirap po ba?

Sir: Oo gaya siyempre doon mo itatala yung mga kasaysayan ng lugar, tapos yung
tinatawag namin na genealogy, siyempre ang hirap non. Alamin mo yung alaala ng
kaisipan.

Lance: Yung instruction po ba ng NCIP malinaw naman po ba?

219
Sir: Oo sila naman ang nagpa-facilitate nung aming mga ano, dinadaan kasi yan sa
mga meetings, workshop kasi doon mapapalabas, mapagpalinaw at huhugutin mo
doon sa nakakatanda tapos kami mismong mga leader magsasabi. Ang dialect kasi
namin kaya mahirap iano is Zambal, kaya iaangkop mo sa probinsya. Kaya yung
genealogy mo sampu ang paggagalingan, halos buwan [ang tinatagal] dahil ilang clan,
madugo ang usapin lalo na yung pagsusurvey kasi kailangan mitama mo siya sa mga
boundaries. Kasi yung mga boundaries namin ay bayan ng Cabangan tapos San
Marcelino hanggang parte ng Pampanga, Tarlac kaya ang tagal. Yan ang
pinakamahirap.

Lance: Ano pa po mga problema?

Sir: Ang dami dahil marami ang nagkaclaim. Ang pinakamahirap doon ay sa loob ng
aming ancestral domain na mayroon ang gobyerno na sinasabing pastulan tapos
mayroon din yung ginagawang reforestation.

Lance: Kayo po nag-aayos ng mga ganon?

Sir: Hindi kasama na rin ang DENR at nakikipag-ugnayan na rin kami sa DAR.
Madugo talaga dahil mahirap kausapin yung mga tiga-gobyerno.

Kianna: so parang ang nagpatagal po diyan ay yung mga attached agencies? May part
po ba sa process na nakausap niyo ang DAR, ang LRA?

Sir: Ang batas ng DAR, ang Repormang Agraryo tapos ang DENR tungkol naman sa
reforestation. Ibubukod natin yan pagkatapos yung mga rancho ibubukod din yan.
Kaya sa apply namin na 22,000 hectares, ibinukod lahat iyon mininus lahat kaya
naging 16,000 na lang. Ayaw namin na magkaroon ng kaaway

Kianna: Meron po bang nanghimasok na mga private na kumpanya? O doon po sa

nabawas sa 22, 000 hectares ay puro sa pag-aari ng gobyerno?

Sir: Yun lang naman. Ginawa kasi nilang private propery nila yung mga nagtatrabaho
sa gobyerno. Inaaplyan nila ng pasteur lease, tapos pagkatapos iaapply naman nila sa
reforestation. Kahit nasa loob ng ancestral domain, wala kaming magawa. Mininus na
lang namin para mapadali ang aming pagsusurvey. Yang pinsan kong si Raul Dela
Cruz, ang trabaho niya kasamang umiikot sa mga boundary. Ako naman ang gawain
ko nakikipag-ugnayan sa national. Kaya dalawa kaming kumilos tapos mayroon
naman kaming matatanda tapos yung mga clan kailangan alamin kung saan talaga
yung lugar nila. Napakatagal lalo na kung mayroong tinatawag na pulitika. Doon ko
naramdaman may pulitika sa national, pinupulitika ng mga tiga-gobyerno kaya ang
ginawa ko na lang total nagiging paborito ako ni presidente. Tinanong niya ako “Kuya
Carling wala ba kayong problema para makatulong naman ako”. Ang problema kako
namin Madam ay yung sa aming lupaing ninuno na pinapahirapan kami ng mga tiga-

220
gobyerno lalo na ang DENR, DAR parang sila-sila mismo nagkakasabwatan kaya
nahihirapan kami tapos dating naman sa LRA, mahirap din. Mabuti na lang lumapit
ako sa kanya, napakadali ng pag-award. Nirerespeto naman yung ating nagawa, yung
titulo namin. Bago yung ano, FPIC muna kasi yung tinaawag na IPRA law,
Indigenous People’s Right Act kung saan kinikilala ng gobyerno ang lupaing ninuno
kung saan binibigyang titulo.

Kianna: ano naman pong sinasabi ng mga kasamahan niyo sa community? May mga
nagaganap po bang mga meetings, consultations?

Sir: Oo talagang tuloy-tuloy kasi gusto namin ang development kasama ang NCIP na
nagpapaliwanag lalo na ang papasok na investor. Mabuti nga ngayon ang sa NCIP
kaibigan namin, yung iba hindi nila kaibigan ang NCIP.

Lance: May maibibigay po ba kayong sitwasyon na nahirapan kayo sa LRA? Ano

pong ginawa ninyo?

Sir: Una kasi doon sa publicity. Una ipapublish mo, halimbawa 1 to 30, kailangan
may publicity na kalahating buwan baka kasi may maghabol pa bago iaaward sa inyo.
Maraming trabaho at kung mahina ka talaga sa national lalo kang mahihirapan. Sa
totoo, tanungin mo ang NCIP, may kauna-unahang nag-apply hanggang ngayon hindi
pa rin maiaward kasi pulitka tsaka mahina ang leader. Kung mahina ang leader ang
hirap din.

Kianna: so kailangan may influence kayo at connections po?

Sir: Oo tsaka marami tayong mga kaibigan sa national, yun ang pinakamaganda.

Kianna: so parang may bias po talaga?

Sir: Oo pero hindi paborito kung hindi kailangan malakas ang loob mo at may
paninindigan. Walang paborito naman. Kailangan alamin mo yung kanilang mga
kahinaan din kasi tatlumpung taon ko pagka-lider. 1980s, hindi pa kayo pinapanganak
panahon pa ni Marcos

Lance: Erap na po kami pinanganak.

Kianna: Sa katunayan po ito na po yung pinakamabilis na CADT na nahanap namin

kasi kinokompare namin sa iba.

Sir: Sa totoo lang mga anak kung susundan natin, kami na ang pinakamapalad dito sa
Central Luzon dahil dalawa, tatlong taon pa lang ng pag-aaply namin, pang-apat na
taon nakuha na namin ang titulo pero yung iba mahirap. Dito sa Zambales maraming
nag-apply ng ancestral domain hindi pa rin. Depende talaga yan mga anak sa lider.

221
Kung alamin natin ang kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, ngayon ang administrasyon ni
Duterte lider na talagang naninindigan ngayon lang nagkaganito na nagkabulalyaso
sila. Ang Pilipinas pala puro drug addict na ang mga tao di ba? Kung wala kang
paninindigan at wala kang history bilang isang lider ang hirap kumilos.

Lance: sa DENR naman po, ano pong naging problema?

Sir: ang daming eche bureche kami pa ang pinapaayos. Pinapatagal kasi nila yan.
Mabuti na lang marami tayong kaibigan sa National. Alam ng NCIP yan. Kung
mahina ka rin sa national, wala rin.

Kianna: Ano po kayang rason kung bakit ang DENR dinedelay nila?

Sir: Ayaw kasi nila na mapahiya sila. Kapag nag-aaward sila, hindi naman pag-aari ng
gobyerno kung hindi ng mga katutubo

Kianna: Sir naabutan niyo po ba na bago pa ang NCIP ang naghahandle ng ancestral
domain ay sila dati?

Sir: Ang NCIP pag hindi rin matatag, ang hirap din lalo kung hindi rin sila naiinvolve
sa usapin ng kasaysayan ng tribo mahirap din. Kaya sa management, hindi porket
nag-aral ka na alam mo na lahat, hindi rin. Alamin mo ang kasaysayan.
Nakipagpartner din kami sa private sector.

Lance: sa DAR naman po, anong problema?

Sir: Ang DAR naman kasi wala kaming masyadong problema subalit may tinatawag
na CLOA. Ang CLOA naman, ibinigay nila sa ancestral domain na nakadeclare na sa
tribo . Hindi pwede yun technical sa kanila yun. Kaya mabuti malakas ang bibig natin
at kilala natin kung sinong pinag-awardan na hindi dapat dahil pag-aari ito ng tribo.
Kasi sa batas ng DAR , tinitingnan nila kung saan nakatiwangwang ang pag-aari ng
mayamang tao at sobra-sobra sa kanilang lupa at iyon ay kukunin ng kalahati ng
gobyerno para iaward naman sa mga magsasaka. Isa rin ako sa mga lider sa Central
Luzon tungkol sa DAR kaya nakikipag-away ako sa DAR .

Kianna: yung mga resources niyo naman po sa pagpaprocess ng CADT?

Sir: Kanya-kanya kami. Nakikipag-ugnayan din kami sa mga private sector. Okay
lang naman ang mga resources ng NCIP.

Kianna: Meron po ba kayong specific NGOs, private organizations na tumutulong sa

inyo?

Lance: Anu-ano pong mga pangalan? Tanda niyo pa po ba? Marami po ba?

222
Sir: Marami. Mga taong simbahan. Marami.

Lance: May inexpect na po ba kayong, kunyari nung nag-apply po kayo nung simula
binigyan po ba kayo na kunwari sa dalawang taon maibibigay na ito.

Mico: May timeframe po bang sinabi sa inyo kung gaano kahaba ang application
niyo?

Sir: Wala dahil hindi nila alam kung papaano sila kumilos dahil nako-control sila ng
National kasi Office of the President. Halimbawa, nagsumbong yung may malawak
na lupain sa ancestral domain pupunta sa presidente madedelay at madedelay yan.
Mabuti na lang ang nakikipag-network tayo hindi lang sa private sector kundi sa tiga-
gobyerno. Tatanungin kami na sa lugar ba na ito may lupaing ganito? Dati-rati sa
amin yan subalit inapplyan nila ng pasteur lease tapos aaplyan nila sa DENR ng
reforestation pero sa loob ng ancestral domain. Ang nangyayari doon minus ng minus
para hindi kami magkaroon ng kaaway. Kaya nagiging 16, 000 plus na lang

Lance: Ano naman po masasabi niyo sa pagtulong ng NCIP?

Sir: Okay naman. Una doon, nakikipagtulungan sila sa amin. Ang kaigihan sa amin
ang mga taga-NCIP ay kapwa naming taga-Botolan, mga naglilingkod sa opisina
maliban sa PO at tsaka yung Public officer na galing ng Mountain Province. Ang ano
talaga ay malakas an glider.

Lance: Nakipag-usap na rin po ba kayo sa main NCIP?

Sir: Oo

Lance: Okay naman po ba sila?

Sir: Okay naman alam nila ugali ko. Tanungin niyo si Apo Carling kung ano
kasaysayan niya sa national. Inaaway ko sila. Marami akong inaway sa NCIP lalo na
sa DENR.

Lance: Natauhan naman po?

Sir: Oo naman may kumukuha ng hindi sa amin. Ang ancestral domain ng aming mga
ninuno before dumating yung mga mananakop nandiyan na ang aming mga ninuno at
diyan na sila namatay at inilibing at diyan din kami ipinanganak tapos ano pang
hahanapin ng gobyerno. Kasi noon sa kasaysayan ng Pilipinas wala talagang papel.
Dumatig lang yang mga Kastila nagkaroon na ng mga titulo-titulo pero sa history
wala. Ang aming mga boundary sapa, punong-kahoy, bato, libingan yun ang aming

223
history. Kung saan naaabot ang pinagkukuhanan ng aming kabuhayan yun ang aming
ancestral domain.

Lance: Ngayon po ba na naaward na ang CADT ninyo meron po bang problema

kayong naencounter?

Sir: Meron dahil nagkaroon ng problema lalo na sa sinasabing crater yung ano ng Mt.
Pinatubo. Kinikilala nila na taga-Botolan ang may-ari ng lupa at crater. Ang problema
yung entrance na dumadaan ang mga turista sila ang kumukuha ng bayad, ang tagal
naming nakipag-dialogue sa mayor ng Capaz, kaming mga lider.

Lance: Sa tingin niyo po sobrang importante ng certificate na iyon na hindi po siya

nababalewala?

Sir: Alam naman namin na iimplement yung sa IRA law. Halimbawa may mga
papasok na investor, magkakaroon muna ng FPIC sa lahat ng tribo bago hindi bay an
makasira ng aming kultura at hindi rin masisira ang aming ancestral domain. At
magkakaroon ng assembly, ang pinakamakapangyarihan sa amin.

Lance: sa ngayon po ba wala ng problema?

Sir: Meron konti. Kami na ang naglulutas hndi na makikialam ang iba. Hindi naman
nila alam, kami lang ang may kaalaman. Hindi mawawala yan.

Lance: Kung may irerecommend kayo sa CADT application, ano po ang gusto niyong
baguhin, dagdagan o tanggalin po?

Mico: para po mapabilis yung pagpoproseso

Sir: Wala namang dapat baguhin. Kung gusto lang mapabilis, dapat baguhin dito ay
ang development. Hindi kasi binibigyan ng pondo ang development ng CADT. Ang
tinatawag na suporta ng gobyerno, dapat mapaunlad namin ang aming lupain. Sabi
nga namin sa gobyerno maraming pera ngunit hindi nagagamit sa tamang serbisyo.
Nagagastos sa pulitika. Ang panawagan namin ay bigyang pagkakataon ang mga
katutubong lider na bigyan ng pondo at kami ang mamamahala sa aming lupain
paraan namin kung anong klaseng development ang naangkop sa amin sa
pangkabuhayan lalo na sa tinatawag na reforestation kasi ang DENR ang tinatanim
hindi talaga pang-bundok. Kaya ang gusto namin yung namumunga ang itatanim
namin, mga mangga, langka, kasuy lahat ng klaseng namumunga na
pinakikinabangan ng tao.

Lance: Panghuli Sir, ano po yung suggestion niyo para maimprove ng NCIP ang
proseso po?

224
Sir: Ang sa akin ang mairerecommend ko mula provincial hanggang national sana lalo
pa nila pabilisin yung mga kapwa naming tribo kasi ang tribong Aeta malawak yan,
hindi pa nasurvey at hindi pa naiaaward ang kanilang ancestral domain kaya tulungan
nila ang walang kakayahan para mapabilis yung pag-susurvey at mapaaga maiaward
sa kanila ang CADT. Malawak yan, kakaunti lang nabawas. Hindi mag-awayan kung
hindi mapabilis at hindi na masyado matagal ang pagsusurvey. Ano pa?

All: Yun lang po. Maraming salamat po!

[End of Recording]

225
 APPENDIX P
Aeta-Magbukon Leaders Group Discussion Transcription

April 1, 2018
Limay, Bataan
Board Member Danilo Salonga
Chieftain Bagsik-Rosales
Mr. Mario Bagsik
Ms. Carmelita Diego
_____________________________________________________________________

BM Danilo Salonga: Ang tanong ko muna, saan niyo gagamitin? Pwede kaya kaming
makahingi ng kopya ng tesis niyo pagkatapos niyong isulat? Yung iba kasi kapag
nakakuha sila, di na bumabalik. Ipadala nalang dito sa barangay.

Tei: Gaano katagal ang inyong aplikasyon.

BM: Nag-umpisa kami 2004, ngayon ay titulo nalang ang hinihintay.

Tei: Naging malinaw ba ang pagkakasaad ng proseso?

BM: Matagal naming pinagplanuhan, pinagusapan. Andito sila kasama yung mga
engineer. Siguro mga 2004 yun, nag-oryentasyon muna kami sa IPRA. Kasama lahat,
sinusundan kami sa bundok sa kinaragan lang. Ngayon ay may 70 families. Pero
noong 2003, yung barangay Kinaragan lang at barangay Aryada kasi katutubo din
sila. Isang upuan lang sa buong diskusyon. Nagtagal kasi nagsimula kami sa
oryentasyon ng IPRA tapos nakagawa ng resolusyon tungkol sa hinihiling sa NCIP na
mag-CADT sa lupaing ninuno.

Tei: may naging problem po ba?

Syempre mahirap, matagal. Pinakamahirap yung paghihingi ng sinumpaang salaysay.

Kasi kailangang hanapin yung patunay ng mga matatanda na kami yung nauna dito.
Kinukuha sa mga matatanda. Kasi matatanda syempre at tribo, parang
nagkukwentuhan lang. Yung mga matatanda kasi, minsan nalilito din sila. Kaya mga
limang angkan yung hinihingan. Nakasulat yun, naka-draft bago ipa-final tapos
babasahin sa mga matatanda tapos icoconfirm ng mga matatanda yung pinagsama-
samang sinumpaang salaysay.

Limang angkan: Justin Hamog, Norman Castillo, Rufino Bagsik, Salonga, di na

maalala.

Tei: Maliban sa personnel ng NCIP, sino pa tumulong?

226
Simbahan, katulong sa pagdodokumento. Pag-alaga sa karapatan ng mga katutubo.
NGO. Yung sa simbahan, Indigenous People Apostolic, tapos sa NGO, yung
PANLIPI, Tanggapang Panlegal ng mga Katutubong Pilipino sa manila. CBCP. Si
Mayor tumulong din. Tapos si Governor din.

Tei: Aling yugto ng proseso?

Nagtagal yung pagsusukat. Kasi kabundukan yung sinukat.

Jacob: ano po yung naging palatandaan?

Gumawa muna kami ng mga krokis na boundary, nakalagay sa sinumpaang salaysay
tapos pinuntahan gamit yung mapa ng mga matatanda. Pinaglalagyan ng mga tanda
muna paikot. Yung ginawang mapa, drawing lang. Dito babagtas ang ating lupain –
pahingaan nila kung saan yung abot nila.

Paano nasabi na yun lang yung pagmamay-ari?

Yung sa amin ay umabot ng Bagac at Mariveles ang pagitan. yung boundary, ang
ginagawa ng mga matatanda kasi ay kung saan sila naghahanap buhay. Kung saan
umaabot ang kanilang hanapbuhay, mga baboy, manok, pangangaso ng baboy-ramo,
pangunguha ng pukyutan, pagyayantok. Sobrang importante ng sinumpaang salaysay
kasi yan ang basis. Nakatugon naman ang NCIP sa mga sinumpaang salaysay. Pinag-
uusapan talaga ng mga matatanda ang boundary at pinupuntahan talaga.

Nasabi po last time na umaakyat sa boundaries, pinupuntahan talaga naming.

Natutulog kami kahit may bahay na kami. Mga isang linggo kami sa mga bundok.
Nagkukuha ng honeybees, nangangapa ng mga hipon. Pagbaba non, ibebenta namin,
minsan mga dalawang gallon, apat na gallon.

Sa buong proseso? Anong problema?

Naging problema yung dating mayor kasi tinutulan niya yung pagususkat sa lupaing
ninuno. Yung problema nila ay hindi lang yung mga katuttubo ang may mga
karapatan. Ang ginamit naming rason, hindi kami makapagsukat, kasama naming
yung NCIP, yung mga NGO, yung simbahan pero tumutol pa din. Natuloy nalang
noong napalitan yung dating mayor.

Nabanggit sa ncip na nagkulang yung budget?

Kinapos yung unang budget at pagsusukat, nawala yung engineer at nag-abroad.
Hindi naiwan yung dating sinukat nabaliwala.

Maliban kay dating mayor at engineer?

227
Una siguro, yung mga hindi pa malinaw sa mga katutubo yung proseso ng CADT,
noong nalinaw naman pumayag naman sila. Nasukat na lahat.
Ilang years na po kayo naghihintay? Nag-umpisa kami ng 2004 hanggang ngayon
2018.

Ano po yung initial o expectation?

Kasi yung CADT umaabot ng sampung taon kasi andaming inaayos.

May ginagawa poba ang aeta community para mapabilis?

Sinusulatan naming yung NCIP, follow-up, follow-up sa opisina. Ginagawa nila yung,
pinaparehistro pa sa LRA, kasi kung hindi, wala rin yung kwan. May ginagawa
naman kasi nakikipag-usap ako sa commissioner. Kakalabas ko lang noong isang
buwan. Derederetso an ako sa main office.

Sabi po ng DAR, nagkakaproblema sa pagsusukat ng lupa kapag may carp

beneficiaries sa loob ng lupang ninuno. Kasi pumunta na din dito yung DAR, nag on-
site na din sila, pero wala silang nakita.

Dito sa Ancestral Domain, ngayon wala pa naman. Sa mga public lands, ala naming
titulong tinamaan. Kasi ibang mga titulo, hiniwalay na talaga namin, pinag-usapan na
naming.
Maayos naman silang katrabaho kasi kwan naming sila. Lagi kaming nagpupulong
pulong sa NCIP, mabait yung bago naming officer kasi tribo din siya. Si Tanawan.

Obserbasyon:
Syempre antagal na, naiinip na kaming mga katutubo. Tapos ang sagot nila, kailangan
ayusin natin yan, kasi kapag nagkamali, magkakaproblema tayo,.
Halaga:
Buhay naming yan.
Words for duterte:
Sa amin, at sa NCIP gumawa na ng na kung saan ang presidente natin ay igalang ang
batas. Kasi ito ang sandigan ng mga katutubo. Nasa batas kasi yun, may mga
kasunduan naman, napapag-usapan naman ng tribo. May MOA.

Recommendation:

Siguro ang rekommendasyon naming ay madaliin ang CADT.

Yung sabi po ng ncip, kaya tumatagal yung ancestral domain title, dahil sa sobrang
tagal.

Ahhh, ang problema ay yung JAO. Kasi yung JAO, gusto din ng mga katutubo, sa
section 56 yung pagrespeto sa lupaing ninuno. Pinag-uusapan na alisin na yung JAO.

228
Kasi LRA-DENR-DAR-NCIP kasi apat yung magkakasama. Nakatagal din yan sa
proseso. Kasi magpa-plot din ang DAR, tapos DENR. Hindi sabay-sabay. Kapag
nagpunta sa isang opis, magtatagal don, tapos kapag nagpunta pa sa isa, mag-tatagal
ulit. Kaya sa amin, gusto naming tanggalin kasi nagtatagal.

[End of Recording]

229
 APPENDIX Q

Photos with Interviewees

The researchers together with Engineer Jeanette Manel and Engineer Shelley Calara of
NCIP Ancestral Domain Office

The researchers together with Mr. Xyril Shane Dumageng, Development Management Officer of NCIP
Ancestral Domain Office

230
 The researchers together with Engineer Gibbs Bestoton of NCIP Region 3 Office

The researchers with Mr. Kevin Fonseca, Planning Officer III of the NCIP Region 3 Office

231
The researchers with Mr. Randie Bacani, Chief Administrative Officer of NCIP Region 3 Office

232
The researchers with the Aeta-Magbukon of Limay, Bataan

233
The researchers with Apo Carling who led the CADT application of Aeta Zambal of Botolan,
Zambales

234