Awareness of The Most Populated Pala-Oan and Tagbanua Tribein Narra Palawan On The Indigenous People Rights Act (Republic Act No.8371) in Relation To Some Variables

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Indigenous People are the inheritors and practitioners
of unique cultures and ways of relating to other people and
the environment. Indigenous People have retained social,
cultural, economic and political characteristics that are
distinct from those of the dominant societies in which we
now live. Despite their cultural differences, the various
groups of indigenous People around the world share common
problems and important views associated to the protection
of their rights as distinct peoples.
Numerous issues and concerns of indigenous people have
witnessed significant breakthroughs both locally and
internationally in recent decades. Various means of
struggle both within and without the formal legal system
have been employed. Defending ancestral lands and their
resources remains the major issue. Implicit in this battle
to protect land and resources is the struggle to preserve
indigenous culture and traditions that are so often
inextricably linked to the land itself

(www.arizonajournal.org/ajicl/archive/AJICL2004/vol211/Moli
ntas).
The main threats to minority rights in the Philippines
are faced by Lumad, Igorot and other indigenous community,
ethnic Chinese and Moros. Indigenous people continue to
face the problems of land loss due to development projects,
worsening poverty, government neglect and loss of culture.
Today, population of Indigenous People was estimated
17% of the current population, based on the report released
by the Office of Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC) and
office of Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) in 1996.
Since then no census has been conducted to determine the
current population of IPs (Philippine Indigenous People
Link).
They are among the poorest and the most disadvantaged
social group in the country. Illiteracy, unemployment and
incidence of poverty are much higher among them than the
rest of the population. Indigenous People settlements are
remote, without access to basic services, and are
characterized by a high incidence of morbidity, mortality
and malnutrition. The well-developed non-governmental
organization (NGO) community has four years actively

lobbied authorities to address the claims of by indigenous
people and other minorities such as the Moro’s that they
face discrimination and disadvantages in areas such as land
ownership, education and language use.
Republic Act 8371, known as the Indigenous Peoples’
Rights Act (IPRA), was promulgated in 1997. The law has
been lauded for its support for respect for indigenous
Peoples’ cultural integrity, right to their lands and right
to self-directed development of these lands.
A number of legislative changes and pilot projects
have emerged in 2004 and 2005 to address some of these
issues. An institute for indigenous people education has
also set up a handful of pilot schools to respond in a more
receptive way to the culture and traditions of indigenous
people, previously instituted institution such as the
National Commission on Indigenous People Rights Act 1997,
have been operating now for a number of years.
However, the Indigenous People in the Philippines
remain as the most marginalized sector of society. This
status continues despite the tremendous in roads achieved
by communities, partners and advocates through years of
struggle. In 1997, as result vigilance and the sustained

advocacy of the Indigenous People sector and its partners,
the Indigenous People Rights Act (IPRA) was enacted. This
provided venues and legal backbone for the recognition of
the Traditional Rights of communities over their ancestral
domain.
Finally, while Section 30 of the Indigenous People
Rights Act 1997 clearly indicated that education must be
provide in the language of and in a manner appropriate to
their culture, the reality on the ground 10 years later is
that there are only a few indigenous pilot schools or
schools using an indigenous language set up by elders with
little or no support from state authorities. The language
policy of the Philippines is still English and Filipino-
centered, and in effect creates obstacles for indigenous
peoples in terms of education and access to employment
opportunities, as their own languages remain largely unused
or not recognized by Filipino authorities for official
transactions or education
(www.minorityrights.org/3462/philippines/philippines-
overview.html).
Specifically, there are numerous indigenous People
living in Palawan. Majority of them are the Pala-oan and
Tagbanuas that are currently settling in Municipality of

Narra Palawan, where the Chieftain served as leader of
their tribe. Accordingly, most of them lack education, and
can only step until high school. Most of them are in the
lowest standard of living, because of their livelihood and
source of income. They are living with a simple nipa hut,
aside from this, they can’t easily grab some opportunities
to study in college because some of them live far in the
village In fact studying in college for them is just an
ambition because of poverty and distance of home to school.
Abuse and some cases of Indigenous People can be settled by
their chieftain. But their demands can be easily heard
because of IP representation in Sangguniang Bayan.
Now, the researchers have been interested in
determining the awareness of the least populated Pala-oan
and Tagbanua Tribe in Narra Palawan on the Indigenous
People Rights Act(Republic Act No.8371) in relation to some
variables.
Statement of the Problem
The study aimed to determine the Awareness of the
least populated Pala-oan and Tagbanua Tribe in Narra
Palawan on the Indigenous People Rights Act (Republic Act
No. 8371) in relation to some variables.

Specifically, it answered the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the research respondents in terms
of:
1.1 Personal Profile
1.1.1 Age
1.1.2 Gender
1.1.3 Educational Attainment
1.1.4 Seminar/Lecture attended
1.1.5 Family Monthly Income; and
1.1.6 Distance of Residence from Brgy. Hall
2. What is the level of awareness of the Indigenous People
in the Republic Act 8371?
3. Is there a significant relationship between the Profile
and awareness of the Indigenous People in Republic Act
8371?
4. Is there a significant difference between the awareness
of Pala-oan and Tagbanua on the Indigenous People Rights
Act(Republic Act No.8371)?
Significance of the Study
The study aimed to determine the Awareness of the
least populated Pala-oan and Tagbanua Tribe in Narra

8371) in relation to some variables.
The result of this study will specifically be
beneficial the following:
To the Community, the result of this study will help
them know about the Republic Act 8371 (Indigenous People
Rights Act of 1997) that will change their perception and
treatment to the indigenous people.
To the Indigenous people, the result of this study
will help them to be aware about their rights and to know
their claims.
To the National Commission Culture Acts (NCCA), this
study will help them to be informed about the current
status of Indigenous People in Barangay Estrella, Malatgao,
Taritien, Batang-batang, and Bato-bato.
To the Local Officials,this will serve as
supplementary on the information of the Republic Act 8371
in the Municipality of Narra, Palawan.
To the researchers, this study will help us enhance
and advanced our knowledge on Republic Act 8371 and to be
more responsible about it.

To the future researchers, this study will simply help
them to guide, innovate and to make a study related to the
Indigenous People and the Republic Act 8371.
Scope and Delimitation
The study was determined in terms of problem, locale,
respondents and duration.
Problem. The focus of the study was on the awareness
of the least populated Pala-oan and Tagbanua Tribe in Narra
No. 8371) in relation to some variables.
Locale. The locale of this study was delimited in
Barangay Aramayan and Barangay Malinao II in Municipality
of Narra, Palawan. They are the two most populated
barangays with Indigenous People in the Municipality of
Narra.
Respondents. This study focused on the 332 Pala-oan
in Barangay Aramaywan and 124 Tagbanuas in Barangay Malinao
II in the Municipality of Narra.
Duration. The study was conducted in March 2015 and
will be completed in February 2016.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter shows the review of related literature
for further information and details about the study.
Review of Related Literature
The preceding statement of literature is mostly based
on the provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that
helps to strengthen the information about the study.
As provided in the Constitution of Republic of the
Philippines it was stated at sec.2 Article XII “The state,
subject to the provisions of this constitution and national
development policies and programs, shall protect the rights
of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands
to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being”.
In addition, Article II, section 22 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, reiterated in section 2, chapter 1 of the
Republic Act 8371 otherwise known as “The Indigenous Rights
Act(IPRA) of 1997”, declares that the state recognizes and
promotes the right to the ICCs within the framework of the
national unity and development. Section 30 of the IPRA Law,
chapter VI, under Cultural Integrity, has a provision on

Educational Systems which indicates that” The state shall
provide equal access to various cultural entities,
scholarship grants and other incentives without prejudice
to their right to establish and control their own
educational systems and institutions”.
However, the IPRA defines the rights of indigenous
cultural communities and indigenous people, and was
primarily enacted pursuant to the state policy enshrined in
the Philippine Constitution to “recognize and promote the
rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development.” In addition,
the indigenous people and the advocates are concerned with
the sec. 2 of the IPRA that sets restrictions on the rights
granted to them. This means that the state shall protect
the rights of the indigenous peoples to their ancestral
lands; and in the same breathe withholds this rights by
subsuming indigenous people’s interests.
On the other hand, the Congress pass the CIPRA(
Community Intellectual Rights Protection Act). The
objective of this bill as its main title indicates is to
provide for a system of community intellectual rights
protection of local and indigenous cultural communities
with respect to the development of genetic resources and

the conservation of the country’s biological diversity. The
bill explicitly concedes that biodiversity has been and
should remain the commons of local communities with both
resources and knowledge being freely exchanged among
different communities who are also users of the innovation.
This bill therefore seeks to re-define innovations to
recognize both the collective and cumulative intellectual
right of the country’s cultural communities over the
sameinnovations. In addition, the bill’s definition of
innovation recognizes such indigenous knowledge howsoever
recorded, whether formally of informally. This is in
consideration of the fact that many indigenous communities
in the country do not have a written tradition or culture.
To overcome the difficulty of defining local communities,
communities can register as an organization which will have
a legal entity. But it also emphasized that failure to
register does not alter the fact that the community
concerned is and will remain the custodian of the
innovation.
In recent years, the Philippine Government has made
major policy reforms in order to address the serious
problem of the lack of tenurial security among IPs. The
Philippine has led the way in the SEA region as it had

pioneered the use of long-term stewardship agreements as a
tenurial instrument to recognize the resource management
rights of IPs within forestlands in the early 1980s’. But
perhaps the most radical policy reform with regards to
Tenurial Security of Indigenous Peoples in the region was
the enactment of the Indigenous People Rights Act (IPRA) by
the Philippine Government in 1997. The IPRA goes beyond the
contract-based resource management agreements between the
state and the community as it recognizes the “ownership” of
the Indigenous Community over their traditional territories
which include land, bodies of water and all other natural
resources therein. Furthermore, the IPRA provides tenurial
security to the community with issuance of an ownership
Title (Certificate of Ancestral Domain/Land Title) to the
concerned Indigenous clan or community. With the passage of
IPRA in 1997, the law recognized the rights of Indigenous
peoples over their ancestral domains and provided for a
process of titling of lands through the issuance of
Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT). The law
gave jurisdiction of all ancestral domain claims to the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) including
those previously awarded by the DENR and all future claims
that shall be filed. The new law provided the basis for
filing new claims which included the submission of a valid

perimeter map, evidences and proofs, and the accomplishment
of an Ancestral Domain Sustainable Protection Plan (ADSPP).
All existing ancestral domain claims previously recognized
through the issuance of CADCs are required to pass through
a process of affirmation for titling. IPRA included "Self
Delineation" as the guiding principle in the in the
identification of AD claims.
There are one hundred ten (110) major indigenous
groups in the Philippines. Most of them depend on
traditional swidden agriculture utilizing available upland
areas. However, most of these traditional cultivation sites
and fallow areas have now been degraded and are further
threatened by the influx of immigrant farmers who have
introduced unsustainable low land commercial farming
practices.
However, the Indigenous Peoples (IP) in the
Philippines remain as the most marginalized sector of
society. This status continues despite the tremendous
inroads achieved by communities, partners and advocates
through years of struggle. In 1997, as result vigilance and
the sustained advocacy of the IP sector and its partners,
the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) was enacted. This
provided venues and legal backbone for the recognition of

the Traditional Rights of communities over their ancestral
domain. In a nutshell, the Indigenous People Rights Act
provides for the recognition of the traditional rights of
Indigenous Peoples over their ancestral domains through the
issuance of Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT).
It recognizes the rights of ICC’s to define their
development priorities through their own Ancestral Domain
Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) and
exercise management and utilize the natural resources
within their traditional territories.
The Indigenous Peoples sector in the Philippines
enjoys a very broad base of active support groups. These
form a wide spectrum of organizations representing the
academe, civil society and the church. Assistance comes in
varied forms ranging from policy advocacy, community
development, technical assistance and education. It can be
said that IP support groups in the Philippines have gained
a certain level of sophistication and specialization in
their respective fields of work. The enactment of the IPRA
has ignited a substantial growth in the number of NGOs and
other social development organizations working with IP
communities. Prior to the passage of the law there was
dearth of capable groups specializing on IP issues. While

the increased number of NGOs working on IP issues bodes
well for the future, this has also raised the incidence of
conflicts with communities. There have been numerous
instances where well-meaning NGOs with little or no
exposure to the cultures and ways of IP communities but
very eager to implement projects have generated local
conflicts among community members. Furthermore, pressure
from funding donors to adhere to tight project schedules
and to produce results have pushed many groups to resort to
shortcuts and thus marginalizing critical community
processes (De Vera, 2007).
Some ten million people or 15% of the Philippine
population belong to distinct indigenous communities or
cultures and retain a close link with their traditions. To
honor their identities, the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act
(IPRA) was passed on October 29, 1997. This Law recognized
the ancestral land rights of the indigenous people. This
law also creates the National Commission on Indigenous
People (NCIP) an office under the Office of the President
and shall be the primary government agency responsible for
the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and
programs to recognize, protect and promote the rights of
Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous People

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Peoples'_Rights_Act_of_19
97).
Indigenous people are a significant and important
portion of humanity. Their heritage, their way of life,
their stewardship of this planet and their cosmological
insights are invaluable treasure house for us all. The word
indigenous has many meanings. In every region of the world
many different culture groups live together and interact,
but not all of these groups are considered indigenous or
inherent of their particular geographic area. In fact it is
only in the face of the collective or shared of identity
that the term indigenous has been internationally
recognized (Chief Seattle).
Intellectual property enables to gain financially from
sharing unique and useful knowledge. Compensating
indigenous people for sharing resources might both validate
& be an equitable reward for biological resources,
intellectual property, compensations are all ambiguous
terms. A contention debate surrounds, this term and any
impossible linkage among them disagreements biological
diversity, their rates of loss and the choice of
conservation strategies for each likewise, conflicting
social perspective must be addressed concerning the rights

of the indigenous people, national sovereignty, common
heritage, monopolization of biological knowledge resources,
international relations, and responsibility for financing
conservation (Brush, et. al.).
And also according to Turpet (1992), it must be
recognized that indigenous populist have their own identity
noted in historical factors which outweigh the phenomena of
mere solidarity in the face of discrimination and
exploitation and that by virtue of their way existence,
they have a natural and original right to live freely on
their own lands.
According to Regpala (2010), recognizing the need to
promote full and effective participation of indigenous and
local communities in the implementation of the program of
work on protected areas at all levels. And encouraging
parties to ensure that conservation and development
activities in the context of protected areas contribute to
the eradication of poverty and sustainable development and
ensure that benefits arising from the establishment and
management of protected areas are fairly and equitably
shared in accordance with national legislations and
circumstances, and do so with the full and effective
participation of indigenous and local communities and where

applicable taking into account indigenous and local
communities’ own management systems and customary use.
Indigenous peoples and their ancestors have managed
and nurtured their ancestral domains and lands based on
their institutions of governance, customary law and
traditional knowledge even before the advent of Spanish
colonial rule in the Philippines in the 15th century.
Indigenous peoples’ practices such as rites and rituals,
ceremonies, prayers and inter-community peace pacts have
been practiced by their ancestors as an integral part of
effective governance and management of the ancestral lands
and domains. Traditional knowledge and practices continue
to this day and are the basis of indigenous peoples’
initiatives in strengthening their rights to their
ancestral domains and lands (Motin,2010).
But the main finding is that indigenous peoples have,
for a long time, been ignored by mainstream Philippine
society. The government has done little to improve the
standards of living of its indigenous cultural communities
or to overcome the high rate of poverty and low levels of
human development, which characterize these populations
(Stavenhagen, 2003).
However, indigenous communities and organizations
continue to actively practice their culture-traditional
knowledge, customary laws and institutions of governance.
In areas where these practices have weakened, there are
revitalization efforts through active schools of living
traditions and indigenization of education and other
similar efforts (Saway, 2009).
Synthesis
The preceding review of related literature enumerated
provisions from the Philippine Constitution that sought to
protect the right of indigenous people, their intellectual
rights, Educational Rights, Social Justice and Human
Rights, Rights of Ancestral Domain, and Right to Self
Government and Empowerment. The authors declared the
vitality of each Indigenous People, how they must be
treated and must be supported by the Government.
Conceptual Framework
Based on the review of literature, the researchers
formulated a theoretical framework of the study. This study
visualizes the relationship of the respondents profile in

Indigenous People Rights Act (Republic Act 8371). This is
illustrated in research paradigm as shown in figure 1.
Research Paradigm
Respondent’s Profile: Awareness of the most

populated Pala-oan and
1. age; Tabanua Tribes in Narra
2. gender; Palawan on the Indigenous
3. educational People Rights Act
attainment; (Republic Act 8371) in
4. seminar/lecture relation to:
attended;
a.education aspect
5. family monthly income;
b.social justice
6. distance of residence c.attainment
from barangay hall;
Figure1. Schematic Presentation of the

Conceptual Framework
The figure shows the relationship between the
independent variable and dependent variable.

Null Hypothesis
To help the researchers in the formulation of their
conclusion, the understated null hypothesis was tested:
There is no significant relationship between the
profile and awareness of the Indigenous People in Republic
Act 8371.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined theoretically or
operationally:
Age. Is the time of life when a person does something
or becomes legally able to do something.
Attainment. Is the full achievement of a person in
some aspects of life. In this study, attainment pertains to
the completion of the respondents on Republic Act 8371.
Awareness. This implies to the knowledge gained
through one’s own perceptions or by means of information or
consciousness.
Community. This refers to an organized political or
social body: a body of people in the same locality: the

general public; society and a locality inhabited by such a
group. In this study, the Malinao and Aramaywan are the
communities where the Pala-oan and Tagbanua lived.
Educational attainment. This refers to the highest
level in terms of learning the respondents has achieved.
Gender. Is the state of being a male or a female.
Income. This is the monetary payment received for
goods or services, or from other sources, as rent or
investment.
Indigenous People. This group of people or homogenous
societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by
others, who have continuously lived as organized community
on communally bounded. Pala-oan and Tagbanua are the group
of Indigenous People involved in this study.
Narra. This is a first class municipality in the
province of Palawan, this is the place where the study is
to be conducted.
RA 8371. This is an act entitled to recognize, protect
and promote the rights of Indigenous cultural communities/
indigenous people, creating a national commission of

indigenous people, establishing implementing mechanisms,
appropriating funds therefore, and for other purposes.
Seminar. This is generally a form of academic
instruction, a meeting in which you receive information on
and training in a particular subject.
Social Justice. Is respect for the existence of a
person or a group of people by extending what is due them
in all aspects of life.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter shows the method, design, locale,
population and sample, instrument and statistical treatment
that were used in this study for collecting data.
Research Design
This study utilized the descriptive method of research
that determined the main focus of study which is the
awareness of Indigenous People in Republic Act 8371.It is a
study of facts with accurate and adequate interpretation of
the findings wherein the focus is in describing the
responses and the relationship between the variables.
Furthermore, the research study endeavored to find out the
awareness of the Pala-oan and Tagbanua on the Indigenous
People Rights Act.
Research Locale
The locale of this study were the least populated
Barangays with Indigenous People in the Municipality of
Narra, Palawan, namely Barangay Aramaywan and Malinao II.

Population and Sample
The sample size of the selected stakeholders were
computed using the Sloven’s formula, n=N /( 1 + Ne2 ).It is
a method of selecting a sample size (n) from the universe
(N) such that each member of the population has an equal
chance of being included in the sample and all the possible
combinations of size (n) have an equal chance of being
selected in the sample. A margin of error of 5% was used
to determine the sample size. A total number of 129
respondents were subjected to the study. Random sampling
was used to select the respondents.
The result of the computed total number of
142distributed according to the following:
Table1
Population
NO. OF INDIGENOUS
BARANGAY SAMPLE SIZE
PEOPLE
1.Malinao II 180 124
2.Aramaywan 1955 332
TOTAL 2135 456

Research Instrument
The researchers used a researchers-made Likert scale
questionnaire for this study. It is a type of a
questionnaire by which the answer is expressed by checking
the given choices through an interview conducted by the
researchers. The list of questions is researchers-made but
is based on the provisions of RA 8371. The questionnaire is
divided into two parts: the first part is the profile of
the respondents, and the second part is the level of
awareness of the Indigenous People on the implementation of
RA 8371 in the Municipality of Narra, Palawan. Each item in
the instrument was rated by the respondent using the
following scale: 5-always, 4-most of the time,3-sometimes,
2-seldom, 1-never. It was used to determine the differences
on the awareness of the respondents.
Data Gathering Procedure
A letter of request to conduct this study was
forwarded to the office of PSU-Narra Campus Administrator,
Nathaniel I. Lepasana. Upon his approval, another letter
was sent to the office of the Municipal Mayor, Hon. Lucena
D. Demaala, to ask permission to conduct this study. A
letter of request to conduct this study was forwarded to

the office of the Punong Barangay in the selected
Municipalities for the approval to conduct. After the
approval, the researchers interviewed the respondents
personally to complete this study.
Figure 2. Map of the municipality of Narra, Palawan

Statistical Treatment
Frequencies and percentage were used to measure the
respondent’s profile on gender and educational attainment;
means and standard deviation were used for the profile on
age, number of seminars/lectures attended, family monthly
income, and distance of residence from barangay hall, as
well as on the level awareness on RA 8371; multiple
regression was used to test for significant relationship
between the profile and the level awareness on RA 8371; an
t-test were employed to determine significant difference o
the awareness on RA 8371 between the Pala-oan and Tagbanua
tribes.
The data were treated and analyzed using SPSS
(Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 16, a
computer software program.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA
This chapter shows the result of the study, its
interpretation and presentation.
Table 1.1
Profile of the Respondents in Terms of Age, Number of

Seminars/Lectures Attended, Family Monthly Income,
and Distance of Residence from Barangay Hall
Profile 𝑋̅ s Minimum Maximum
40.69 15.208 18 80
Age
Number of
1.70 1.213 0 4
seminars/lectures
attended
Family monthly 3,425.44 1,770.85 500 10,000
income
Distance of
2.945 2.9843 0.5 11
residence from
barangay hall
The table indicates that the average age of the
respondents is approximately 41 years old. Their ages
differs from 18 to 80 years old. It is possible that at the
age of 18 and above the respondents are aware on the
society and have enough understanding of their rights.

It is revealed on the table that on the average, the
respondents attended approximately a seminar/lecture or two
(2). However, it also shows that there are respondents who
have never attended a seminar/lecture. They attained only
lower level of education, it is possible that they are not
interested in any lectures and usually their chieftain
represents them in any seminar.
The table shows that the average family monthly income
of the respondents is P3,425.44. Among the respondents,
the lowest monthly income of a family is only P500.00 while
the highest is P10,000.00. These amounts are somewhat low.
(Refer to Table 1.5.1 for details). Most of the respondents
have no permanent work and no source of income. While some
of them owned farm lands and have a better standard of
living.
As revealed from the table, the average distance of
residence of the respondents from barangay hall is 2.945
kilometers. The nearest residence is half a kilometer away
while the farthest is 11 kilometers away. These imply that
the residences of the respondents are not too far from the
barangay hall. Thus, Tribe members may have the opportunity
to go to their barangay hall for lectures, seminars, and/or
meetings called by the LGU.

Table 1.2
Profile of the Respondents in Terms of

Gender and Educational Attainment
Profile f %
Gender
Male 212 46.5
Female 244 53.5
Total 456 100.0

Educational Attainment
College graduate 1 0.2
College level 6 1.3
Vocational graduate 4 0.9
Vocational level 4 0.9
High school graduate 31 6.8
High school level 79 17.3
Elementary graduate 141 30.9
Elementary level 174 38.2
No formal education 16 3.5
Total 456 100.0
The data on the table shows that the female
respondents outnumber the male, with respective frequencies
of 212 (46.5%) and 244 (53.5%). This is because when the
researchers conducted the study most of the females stayed
at home while the males are at work.
The table shows that most, that is 174 (38.2%), of the
respondents attained elementary level of education. Next
are those who reached graduated elementary, 141 (30.9%); 79
(17.3%) reached high school level; 31 (6.8%) graduated high
school; 16 (3.5%) had no formal education; six (1.3%)

reached college level; and four (4 or 0.9%) either
graduated or reached vocational. It is conspicuous that
only one (0.2%) graduated college. These entail that the
majority attained only the lower levels of education. Most
of them lived far from the Secondary school and can’t
afford to enter in college.
Table 2
Level of Awareness of the Respondents on Republic Act 8731
Aspects 𝑋̅ s Remarks
Education 3.35 0.75 Aware
Social Justice 3.20 0.79 Aware
Attainment 3.61 0.88 Very Aware
Overall 3.39 0.62 Aware
Fully aware 4.20-5.00
Very aware 3.40-4.19
Aware 2.60-3.39
Slightly aware 1.80-2.59
Unaware 1.00-1.79
The data on the table shows that the respondents are
aware on the education and social justice aspects and very
aware on the attainment aspect of the Republic Act 8731.
In general, they are aware of Republic Act 8731.

Table 3.1
Relationship Between the Profile and Awareness of the

Respondents on the Education Aspect of Republic Act 8371
Profile Correlation B Sig. Remarks
Not
Age 0.014 0.000 0.837
significant
Not
Gender 0.020 0.026 0.718
significant
Educational Not
0.111 0.074 0.011
attainment significant
Seminars/lectures
0.098 0.072 0.016 Significant
attended
Family monthly
-0.038 -1.385 0.509 Significant
income
Distance of
Not
residence from -0.072 -0.016 0.170
significant
barangay hall
p<0.05
The table reveals that the profile of the respondents
on age, gender, family income, and distance of residence
from barangay hall have no significant relationship with
their awareness on the education aspect of Republic Act
8371, based on the significance values of 0.837, 0.718,
0.509, and 0.170, respectively. However, the profile on the
educational attainment and seminars/lectures attended, and
showed significant relationship with their awareness on the
education aspect of Republic Act 8371, based on the
significance values of 0.011 and 0.016. The hypothesis of
no significant relationship between the profile of the

respondents and their awareness on the education aspect of
Republic Act 8371 is accepted for the age, gender, family
income, and distance of their residence from barangay hall
have no significant relationship, but rejected for the
educational attainment. It can be claimed that the
respondents’ awareness on the education aspect of Republic
Act 8371 cannot be accounted for their profile age, gender,
family income, and distance of their residence from
barangay hall have no significant relationship, but it can
be accounted for their profile on the educational
attainment and seminars/lectures attended. Majority of the
respondents attained only lower levels of education, so
they are not aware and can`t avail the benefits given by
the Local Government.

Table 3.2

Respondentson the Social Justice Aspect of Republic Act
8371
Not
Age -0.049 0.000 0.888
significant
Not
Gender -0.008 -0.030 0.689
significant
Educational Not
-0.015 -0.029 0.334
Seminars/lectures
-0.142 -0.080 0.011 Significant
attended
Family monthly
-0.120 -4.833 0.028 Significant
income
Distance of
Not
residence from 0.055 0.015 0.223
significant
barangay hall
p<0.05
on age, gender, educational attainment, and distance of
their residence from barangay hall have no significant
relationship with their awareness on the social justice
aspect of Republic Act 8371, based on the significance
values of 0.888, 0.689, 0.334, and 0.223 respectively.
However, the profile on the seminars/lectures attended and
family monthly income showed significant relationship with
their awareness on the social justice aspect of Republic
Act 8371, based on the significance values of 0.011 and

0.028. The hypothesis of no significant relationship
between the profile of the respondents and their awareness
on the social justice aspect of Republic Act 8371 is
accepted for the age, gender, educational attainment, and
distance of their residence from barangay hall, but
rejected for the seminars/lectures attended and monthly
income. It can be claimed that the respondents’ awareness
on the social justice aspect of Republic Act 8371 cannot be
accounted for their profile on age, gender, educational
attainment, and distance of their residence from barangay
hall, but it can be accounted for their profile on the
seminars/lectures attended and family income. Most of the
respondents are poor, it is possible that they can`t afford
to claim their rights in social justice aspect.

Table 3.3

Respondents on the Attainment Aspect of Republic Act 8371
Not
Age -0.095 -0.004 0.136
significant
Not
Gender -0.030 -0.081 0.324
significant
Educational Not
0.075 0.040 0.236
Seminars/lectures Not
-0.072 -0.018 0.614
attended Significant
Family monthly
-0.179 -7.868 0.001 Significant
income
Distance of
Not
residence from 0.012 0.007 0.599
significant
barangay hall
p<0.05
on age, gender, educational attainment, seminars/lectures
attended, and distance of their residence from barangay
hall have no significant relationship with their awareness
on the attainment aspect of Republic Act 8371, based on the
significance values of 0.136, 0.324, 0.236 and 0.599
respectively. However, only the profile family monthly
income showed significant relationship with their awareness
on the attainment aspect of Republic Act 8371, based on the
significance value of 0.001. The hypothesis of no

significant relationship between the profile of the
respondents and their awareness on the attainment aspect of
Republic Act 8371 is accepted for the age, gender,
educational attainment, seminars/lectures attended, and
distance of their residence from barangay hall but rejected
only for family monthly income. It can be claimed that the
respondents’ awareness on the attainment aspect of Republic
Act 8371 cannot be accounted for their profile on age,
gender, educational attainment, seminars/lectures attended,
and distance of their residence from barangay hall but it
can be accounted for their profile on family monthly
income. Some of the respondents has a lower standard of
living so instead of being aware on their rights they
focused on gaining extra income.
Table 4
Difference in the Awareness of Palao-an and Tagbanua

on Republic Act 8371
Aspects t df Sig. Remarks

Education 0.466 454 0.642 Not significant
Social
-7.781 454 0.000 Significant
Justice
Attainment -4.773 454 0.000 Significant
p<0.05
The table shows that there is no significant
difference in the awareness of the Palao-an and Tagbanua on

the education aspect of Republic Act 8371, based on the
significance value of 0.642. However, there is a
significant difference in the awareness of the Palao-an and
Tagbanua on the social justice and attainment aspects of
Republic Act 8371, based on the same significance value of
0.000.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary, findings and
recommendation of the study.
Summary
This chapter summarizes the information presented in
this study.
The study aimed to determine the awareness of the most
populated Pala-oan and Tagbanua Tribe in Narra Palawan on
the Indigenous People Rights Act (Republic Act No.8371) in
relation to some variables.
The researchers used a researchers-made Likert scale
questionnaire for this study. It is a type of a
questionnaire by which the answer is expressed by checking
the given choices through an interview conducted by the
researchers. The list of questions is researchers-made and
is based on the provisions of RA 8371.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following
questions: What is the profile of the research respondents
in terms of; Personal Profile, age, gender, educational

attainment, seminar/lecture attended, family monthly
income; and distance of residence from barangay hall. What
is the level of awareness of the Indigenous People in the
Republic Act 8371? And is there a significant relationship
between the profile and awareness of the Indigenous People
in Republic Act 8371?
The results indicate that the average age of the
respondents is approximately 41 years old. Their ages
differs from 18 to 80 years old. It is possible that at the
age of 18 and above they are very aware on the society and
have enough understanding of their rights.
The study found out that most, that is 174 (38.2%), of
the respondents attained elementary level of education.
These entail that the majority attained only the lower
levels of education. Most of them lived far from the
Secondary school and can’t afford to enter in college.
The average family monthly income of the respondents
is P3,425.44. Among the respondents, the lowest monthly
income of a family is only P500.00 while the highest is
P10,000.00.
The average distance of residence of the respondents
from barangay hall is 2.945 kilometers. The nearest

residence is half a kilometer away while the farthest is 11
kilometers away. These imply that the residences of the
respondents are not too far from the barangay hall.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of the study, the researchers
had arrived at the conclusion that:
It is noticeable that the respondents are fairly aware
on the education and social justice aspects and very aware
on the attainment aspect of the Republic Act 9731. In
general, they are only fairly aware of Republic Act 8731.
Based on the results, the profile of the respondents
on age, gender, family income, and distance of residence
from barangay hall have no significant relationship with
their awareness on the education aspect of Republic Act
8371.
We also we find out that, the profile of the
respondents have no significant relationship with their
awareness on the social justice aspect of Republic Act
8371, same is the result of having no significant
relationship with their awareness on the attainment aspect
of Republic Act 8371.

Recommendations
Based on the findings and the conclusion of the study,
the following are hereby recommended:
1. Information about the Republic Act 8371 (Indigenous
People Rights Act of 1997) should be conducted to further
improve the level of awareness of Pala-oan and Tagbanua.
2. Information campaign about the Republic Act 8371 that
Local Government should do and committed to assist in for
the proper information dissemination to inform the Pala-
oan and Tagbanua of their rights.
3. Every barangay should have an initiative to encourage
their constituents specifically the Pala-oan and Tagbanua
to participate to the campaign to be more aware.
4. The Local Government should conduct a programs and
seminars relevant to the Republic Act 8371 to elaborate
further importance of the said Act.
5. The Local Government should promote the essence of
education to the Pala-oan and Tagbanua and give full
assistance or grant scholarships.
6. The Local Government should provide a livelihood program
to the Pala-oan and Tagbanua Tribe to improve their way
of living.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A1
LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL OFFICE
Republic of the Philippines

Palawan State University
Puerto Princesa City
Narra College of Community Resources Development

NIA-MBBRIS Compound, Poblacion, Narra, Palawan
May 18, 2015
Hon. CRISPIN O. LUMBA Jr.

Acting Mayor
Narra, Palawan
Sir;
The undersigned are 3rd year political science students of

Palawan State University, Narra College of Community Resources
Development. We humbly request from your good office to allow us
to have a list of names of some Barangay captains in Barangay
Malatgao, Estrella, Taritien, Malinao, Batang2x, Bato2x, and
Aramaywan to ask permission from them to allow us to conduct a
survey questionnaire for our propose research study entitled
“Awareness of the most populated Pala-oan and Tagbanua tribes in
Narra Palawan on the Indigenous People Right’s Act (Republic Act
No. 8371) in relation to some variables”. This study is one of
the requirements to finish the degree of Bachelor of Arts in
Political Science.
We look forward for your favorable approval regarding this

matter.
Thank you more power!
Respectfully yours,
(SGD) PIA M. PADILLA

Researchers’ Leader
Noted by:
(SGD) CELIA P. IGNACIO

Research Adviser
Appendix A2
LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL OFFICE


June 29, 2015
Hon. LUCENA D. DEMAALA

Municipal Mayor
Narra, Palawan
Madam:
The undersigned are 3rd year Political Science Students of

Palawan State University-Narra Palawan. We humbly request from
your good office to allow us to conduct a survey questionnaire
among the members of the Indigenous People to be used in our
proposed research study entitled, “Awareness of the most
populated Pala-oan and Tagbanua tribes in Narra Palawan on the
Indigenous People Right’s Act (Republic Act No. 8371) in relation
to some variables”. This study is one of the requirements to
finish the degree of Bachelor of Arts major in Political Science.

matter.
Thank you and more power!
Respectfully yours,
(SGD) Pia M. Padilla

Noted:
(SGD) Celia P. Ignacio

Research Adviser
Appendix A3
REQUEST PERMISION TO CONDUCT A STUDY


June 17, 2015
Prof. NATHANIEL I. LEPASANA, MAEd

Campus Director
Sir:
The undersigned are 3rd year Political Science Students who

proposed a research study entitled, “Awareness of the most
Indigenous People Right’s Act (Republic Act No.8371) in relation
In line with this, we humbly request the authorization from

your good office to please allow us to conduct a survey
questionnaire in selected barangay in Municipality of Narra,
Palawan in every head of family or any representative of the
family to get the necessary information for this study.

matter.
Respectfully yours,

Noted:

Research Coordinator
Approved by:
(SGD) Nathaniel I. Lepasana

Campus Director
Appendix A4


June 15, 2015
Hon. LUZVIMINDA B. ROCHA

Barangay Captain
Barangay Malinao
Madam:


matter.
Respectfully yours,

Noted:

Adviser
Approved by:
(SGD) Luzviminda B. Rocha

Barangay Captain
Appendix A5


June 15, 2015
Hon. ARSELY Q. NARIO

Barangay Captain
Barangay Aramaywan
Sir:

populated Pala-oan and Tagbanua tribesin Narra Palawan on the

matter.
Respectfully yours,

Noted:

Adviser
Approved by:
(SGD) Arsely Q. Nario

Barangay Captain
Appendix A6
REQUEST PERMISSION TO CONDUCT A STUDY

Puerto Pricesa City
Narra College of Community Resource Development

June 15, 2015

ELIZABETH G. CUBILLAS
MSWD, Narra
Madam:

populated Pala-oan and Tagbanua tribesin Narra Palawan on the
Indigenous People Right’s Act (Republic Act No. 8371) in relation

matter.
Respectfully yours,
(SGD)Pia M. Padilla
Noted:
(SGD)Celia P. Ignacio
Adviser
Approved by:
(SGD)Elizabeth G. Cubillas
MSWD, Narra
Appendix A7
REQUEST PERMISSION FOR PROPOSAL DEFENSE


NIA- MBBRIS Compound, Poblacion, Narra, Palawan
March 25, 2015
NATHANIEL I. LEPASANA
Campus Director
THRU: CELIA R. IGNACIO

Research Coordinator
Sir:
We are the 3rd year taking up Research 01. Undergraduate

thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Bachelor of Arts in Political Science will be respectfully
presenting the thesis entitled “Awareness of the most populated
Tagbanua and Pala-oan tribesin Narra Palawan on Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act ( Republic Act 8371)”.
In connection with this, we would like to ask permission

from your good office to allow as to have an oral defense on
March __, 2015 at PSU-Narra Campus.
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
(SGD)Pia M. Padilla
The Researchers’ Leader
Noted by:
(SGD) CELIA R. IGNACIO

Research Adviser
Appendix B
KAALAMAN NG PALA-OAN AT TAGBANUA SA BATAS NG KATUTUBONG

MAMAMAYAN (BATAS REPUBLIKA 8371)
LAYUNIN: Ang pag-aaral na ito ay naglalayong malaman ang

kaalaman ng Pala-oan at Tagbanua sa batas ng katutubo ng
mamamayan(Batas Republika 8371)
Panuto: Paki sagutan ang mga blanko na may tamang

impormasyon patungkol sa iyo. Maaaring magliban ng mga
blanko kung walang impormasyon sa inyo o kayay isulat ang
N/A.
Pangalan: ______________________________________________
Kasarian: Tribu:
Lalaki Pala-oan
Babae Tagbanua
Edad: ____
Katayuan sa Buhay:Dalaga/Binata ;Kasal ;hiwalay ;Balo
Seminaryo/Panayam na nadaluhan:1 ;2 ; o 3 higit pa
Buwanang Kita ng Pamilya:_______________
Layo ng Tinitirhan sa Barangay Hall:________kms
Natapos na Pag-aaral:
TaposngKolehiyo
NakatungtongngKolehiyo
TaposngEdukasyongBokasyonal
NakatungtongngEdukasyongBokasyonal
TaposngSekondarya
NakatungtongngSekondarya
TaposngElementarya
Nakatungtongng Elementary
WalangPormalnaPag-aaral
Panuto: Lagyan ng tsek (/) ang kahon na katugon ng
iyong sagot: 5-palage, 4- halos sa lahat ng oras, 3-
minsan, 2- bihira, 1- hindi.
Pahayag 5 4 3 2 1
Pang-Edukasyon:
Alam mo ba at nakinabang ka ba sa mga sumusunod:
Ang local na pamahalaan ng Narra…
1.Nagkakaloob ng mga kagamitang pang-edukasyon
(silid-aralan,palikuran, laboratoryo, atbp)
2.Namamahala sa lahat ng programa ukol sa libreng
pag-aaral at iba pang karapatan kaugnay sa
edukasyon
3.Naglalaan ng mga espesyal na programa kabilang ang
pagsasanay sa wika at bokasyonal
4.Naglalaan ng sapat na bilang ng mga may kakayanang
guro sa pagtuturo
5.Nagkakaloob ng mga Alternatibong Sistema ng Pag-
aaral at Pagkatuto
6.Humihikayat na magtapos ng pag-aaral sa kolehiyo
7.Umaagapay sa mga gawaing nagtataguyod sa pag-unlad
8.Nagkakaloob ng mga serbisyong daan sa batayang
panlipunang serbisyo at pagkakataon
9. Nagpapalawak ng edukasyon tungkol sa Batas
Republika 8371
10.Tinitiyak ang pakikilahok sa mga programang Agham
at Teknolohiya
Panlipunang Katarungan at Karapatang Pantao
Alam mo ba at nakinabang ka ba sa mga sumusunod:
Ang local na pamahalaan ng Narra:
11.Napapananatili ang pagpepreserba, pagpoprotekta
at pagpapaunlad ng nakaraan, kasalukuyan, at
panghinaharap na pagpapakilala ng kulturang minana
12.Kinikilala at pinoprotektahan ang karapatan sa
pag-aari at kalagayan sa minanang lupain
13.Pangunahing isinasaisip ang paggamit ng dahas sa
pagpoprotekta at pagliligtas sa usaping
pagmamayaring lupa
14.Pagpoprotekta sa karapatan ng mga kakabaihan sa
kasong pagsasamantalang sekswal
15.Pagtataguyod at pagprotekta sa pisikal, moral,
ispiritwal, kaalaman, at panlipunang kagalingan
16.Pagkakaloob ng pantay na karapatan sa mga
manggagawa na makapasok sa trabaho, tulong medical
at sosyal
17.Pagkakaloob ng espesyal na proteksyon at
pangkaligtasan
18. Pagpoprotekta sa karapatang maging Malaya sa
anumang uri ng Deskriminasyon
19.Pinangangalagaan ang karapatan at hindi sa
kondisyon ng trabaho kung ito ba’y mapanganib sa
kanilang kalusugan, lalo’t higit sa pagkalantad
nito sa mga gamut insekto at nakalalasong kemikal
20.Tinitiyak ang karapatan sa anumang organisasyon
at kalayaang makilahok sa anumang Gawain ng
samahan sa pangangalakal
21.Karapatang maangkin ang pagmamay-ari s aanumang
bahagi ng yamang tubig tulad nang nakasanayan at
karaniwang nasasakupan ng mga katutubong
mamamayan,mga sagradonglugar, nakagawiang
pangasohan, pamingwitan ng mga isda, at lahat ng
kaunlarang nagawa sa panahon ng pamumuno
22.Karapatang paunlarin, pangasiwaan at gamitin ang
lupain at teritoryong nakasanayang sakop,
pagmamay-ari, at nalinang
23.Karapatang makinabang at mabahagian ng tubo mula
sa alokasyon at nagamit na likas na yamang
matatagpuan kalapit nito
24.Karapatang makabatid at matalinong makalahok sa
pagbalangkas ng anumang proyekto, pampubliko o
pampribado, na maaring makaapekto sa pinamunuan ng
mga ninuno at makatanggap ng patas na kabayaran sa
danyos na maaring danasin bunga ng proyekto
25.Karapatang manatili sa teritoryo at hindi
mapaalis dito
26.Karapatan sa paglutas ng anumang sagabal o
suliranin sa lupa alinsunod sa karaniwang
ipinatutupad ng batas sa sukat kung saan naroon
ang lupa
27.Karapatan sa pag-angkin sa bahaging pinamunuan ng
mga ninuno kung saan napanatili at inilaan sa
pampublikong kagalingan at serbisyo
28.Karapatan sa paglilipat ng pagmamay-ari ng lupa o
ari-arian at karapatan sa sinumang miyembrong
mamamayang katutubo, alinsunod sa karaniwang
ipinatutupad ng batas at nakagawian sa mamamayang
katutubo
29.Karapatan sa pagmamay-ari ng mga mamamayang
katutubo sa kanilang lupang minana sa kanilang
ninuno
30.Karapatan na maisaayos ang pagpasok ng mga dayong
maninirahan at mga organisasyon sa lupaing
katutubo
Nakinabang ka ba sa mga sumusunod:
Ang local na pamahalaan ng Narra…
31.Pagkilala sa likas na karapatan ng mga katutubong
mamamayan sa sariling pagsisikap at pamumuno
32.Paggalang sa katapatan ng kanilang pagpapahalaga,
nakaugalian, at Institusyon
33.Pagtitiyak sa karapatan ng mga mamamayang
katutubo na malayang maipagpatuloy ang kaunlarang
ekonomiya at cultural
34.Patuloy ang pagpapalakas at suporta sa rehiyong
binigyan ng malayang pamumuno ayon sa
pangangailangan
35.Paghikayat sa mamamayang katutubo sa kanilang
pagbuo at sariling paraan ng pamumuhay ayon sa
kaangkupan salig sa karapatang nakasaad sa
konstitusyon
36.Karapatan sa kanilang karaniwan at katanggap-
tanggap na sistemang katarungan, suliranin sa
institusyong kapasiyahan, pagbuo ng prosesong
kapayapaan at iba pang nakasaad alinsunod sa batas
at nakagawian
37.Karapatang makalahok sa lahat ng lebel sa pagbuo
ng desisyon sa dahilang maaring makaapekto sa
kanilang karapatan, hinaharap na pamumuhay sa
pamamagitan ng pamamaraang malalaman ng mga ito
gayundin ang pagpapanatili at pagpapaunlad ng
sariling katutubong pampulitikang istruktura
38.Pagtiyak na ang mga mamamayang katutubo ay
binigyan ng kautusang magkaroon ng representasyon
sa pagbuo ng mga patakaran at iba pang tagapagbuo
ng batas sa local na konseho
39.Karapatang maipaalam at magdesisyon ayon sa
sariling pangangailangan para sa pag-unlad na
makaapekto sa pamumuhay, paniniwala, institusyon,
kalagayang ispiritwal, at sa lupa na kanilang
nasasakupan at ginagamit
40.Pagkilala at paggalang sa tungkulin ng mga
organisasyon ng malayang mamamayang katutubo na
maipagpatuloy ang pagprotekta ng kanilang lehitimo
at kolektibong pagnanais, at mangarap sa
pamamagitan ng mapayapa at makabuluhang layunin
alinsunod sa itinakda ng batas
Hango sa: Batas ng Katutubong Mamamayan (Batas Republika

8371)
Appendix C
DETAILED MONTHLY INCOME (PHP) OF THE RESPONDENTS
Monthly Income f %
Below 1000 4 0.9
1000-1999 79 17.3
2000-2999 76 16.7
3000-3999 130 28.5
4000-4999 52 11.4
5000-5999 66 14.5
6000-6999 30 6.6
7000-7999 6 1.3
8000-8999 5 1.1
9000-9999 1 0.2
10000 and above 7 1.5
Total 456 100.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
Arquiza, Y.D. (Ed.). (2005). Nurturing the earth, nurturing

life. In The road to empowerment: Strengthening the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (Vol. 2). Manila:
International Labour Office.
Buasen, C. (n.d.). Profile of education, culture and health

programs/projects for indigenous peoples contained in the
MTPDP-MTPIP 2005-2010: Considerations for the medium-term
work and financial plans. Retrieved from
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Ac7lc9YAWcwJ:www
.ncip.gov.ph/downloads/category/13-
programs.html?download%3D55:oechprofile-of-education-
culture-and-health-programs-for-
ips+buasen+considerations+for&hl=fil&gl=ph&pid=bl&srcid=ADG
EEShtT0SI0P8M1vB4PVBj8LwlfWSW0WkKxEOU7mmfLDCQ3QwFWxhhG-
z8XuufbPErH3Rataql66WimBCH1CCtXczKDFwbswElxDgjjRlWEzYKhjsrW
LQop-6Ii-
z34gmawPnX5_&sig=AHIEtbSHLabLVf1OXJ1rTL849qJvVuNurQ
Buasen, C. (2011.) Education in the context of Philippine

indigenous peoples: A synopsis of engagements. Retrieved
from
http://www.ncip.gov.ph/CentralOffice/OfficeonEducationCultu
reandHealth
Department of Education Order No. 62, series of 2011.

Adopting the National Indigenous Peoples (IP) Education
Policy Framework.
Department of Education–Bureau of Alternative Learning

System [BALS]. (2006). Development of the Indigenous
Peoples Education (Vols. 1-2).
Department of Education Order No. 101, series of 2010. The
Alternative Learning System (ALS) Curriculum for Indigenous
Peoples (IPs) Education.
NCIP Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 1998 – Rules and

regulations implementing Republic Act 8371 otherwise known
as “The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997”
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the IPRA.
Pasimio, Renato R. The Philippine Constitution. 2000

www.arizonajournal.org/ajicl/archive/AJICL2004/vol211/Molin
tas
www.minorityrights.org/3462/philippines/philippines-
overview.html
CURRICCULUM VITAE
Personal Information
Name: Pia M. Padilla
Address: Malinao, Narra Palawan
Date of Birth: December 21, 1995
Place of Birth: Malinao, Narra Palawan
Civil Status: Single
Religion: Catholic
Sex: Female
Family Background
Fathers name: Sonny M. Padilla
Mothers name: Pacita M. Padilla
Elementary: Malinao, Elementary School
Secondary: Narra National High School
College: Palawan State University - Narra
Course: Bachelor of Arts in Political Science

Name: Aloha A. Montilla
Address: Antipuluan, Narra Palawan
Date of Birth: October 23, 1991
Place of Birth: Aborlan, Palawan
Religion: Roman Catholic
Sex: Female
Family Background
Fathers name: Ludivico Montilla
Mothers name: Florife A. Montilla
Elementary: Union Elementary School
Secondary: Union National High School

Name: Angela G. Haban
Address: Panacan I, Narra Palawan
Date of Birth: October 18, 1995
Place of Birth: Poblacion, Narra Palawan
Religion: Born Again
Sex: Female
Family Background
Fathers name: Rufino O. Haban
Mothers name: Rosita G. Haban
Elementary: Panacan Elementary School
Secondary: Panacan National High School

Name: Jeric L. Herlandez
Address: Panacan II, Narra Palawan
Date of Birth: January 24, 1993
Place of Birth: Panacan II, Narra Palawan
Sex: Male
Family Background
Fathers name: Dario C. Herlandez
Mothers name: Evelyn L. Herlandez
Elementary: Panacan II Elementary School

Name: Meliza Rosales
Address: Bayabas St. Poblacion, Narra Palawan
Date of Birth: May 24, 1996
Place of Birth: Bayabas St. Poblacion, Narra Palawan
Sex: Female
Family Background
Fathers name: Melanio P. Rosales
Mothers name: Ligaya V. Rosales
Elementary: Narra West Elementary School

Name: Shyrene Jeezle A. Capiendo
Address: Dalandan St. Poblacion, Narra Palawan
Date of Birth: July 16, 1996
Place of Birth: Bayabas St. Poblacion, Narra Palawan
Sex: Female
Family Background
Fathers name: Hernan Capiendo
Mothers name: Gina Capiendo
Elementary: Narra Pilot Elementary School

Name: Nestor N. Gamelong, Jr.
Address: Teresa, Narra Palawan
Date of Birth: April 21, 1995
Place of Birth: San Pedro Puerto Princesa City
Sex: Male
Family Background
Fathers name: Nestor G. Gamelong, Sr.
Mothers name: Lucia N. Gamelong
Elementary: West Com Elementary School
Secondary: Princess Urduja National High School

Awareness of The Most Populated Pala-Oan and Tagbanua Tribein Narra Palawan On The Indigenous People Rights Act (Republic Act No.8371) in Relation To Some Variables

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Awareness of The Most Populated Pala-Oan and Tagbanua Tribein Narra Palawan On The Indigenous People Rights Act (Republic Act No.8371) in Relation To Some Variables

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Awareness of The Most Populated Pala-Oan and Tagbanua Tribein Narra Palawan On The Indigenous People Rights Act (Republic Act No.8371) in Relation To Some Variables

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER I

Background of the Study

Indigenous People are the inheritors and practitioners

of unique cultures and ways of relating to other people and

the environment. Indigenous People have retained social,

cultural, economic and political characteristics that are

distinct from those of the dominant societies in which we

now live. Despite their cultural differences, the various

groups of indigenous People around the world share common

problems and important views associated to the protection

of their rights as distinct peoples.

Numerous issues and concerns of indigenous people have

witnessed significant breakthroughs both locally and

internationally in recent decades. Various means of

struggle both within and without the formal legal system

have been employed. Defending ancestral lands and their

resources remains the major issue. Implicit in this battle

to protect land and resources is the struggle to preserve

indigenous culture and traditions that are so often

inextricably linked to the land itself

The main threats to minority rights in the Philippines

are faced by Lumad, Igorot and other indigenous community,

ethnic Chinese and Moros. Indigenous people continue to

face the problems of land loss due to development projects,

worsening poverty, government neglect and loss of culture.

Today, population of Indigenous People was estimated

17% of the current population, based on the report released

by the Office of Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC) and

office of Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) in 1996.

Since then no census has been conducted to determine the

current population of IPs (Philippine Indigenous People

They are among the poorest and the most disadvantaged

social group in the country. Illiteracy, unemployment and

incidence of poverty are much higher among them than the

rest of the population. Indigenous People settlements are

remote, without access to basic services, and are

characterized by a high incidence of morbidity, mortality

and malnutrition. The well-developed non-governmental

organization (NGO) community has four years actively

people and other minorities such as the Moro’s that they

face discrimination and disadvantages in areas such as land

ownership, education and language use.

Republic Act 8371, known as the Indigenous Peoples’

Rights Act (IPRA), was promulgated in 1997. The law has

been lauded for its support for respect for indigenous

Peoples’ cultural integrity, right to their lands and right

to self-directed development of these lands.

A number of legislative changes and pilot projects

have emerged in 2004 and 2005 to address some of these

issues. An institute for indigenous people education has

also set up a handful of pilot schools to respond in a more

receptive way to the culture and traditions of indigenous

people, previously instituted institution such as the

National Commission on Indigenous People Rights Act 1997,

have been operating now for a number of years.

However, the Indigenous People in the Philippines

remain as the most marginalized sector of society. This

status continues despite the tremendous in roads achieved