42

3 Philippine Indigenous Communities

UNIT 3: DEVELOPMENT ISSUES & CHALLENGES OF
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

3.0 Intended Learning Outcomes

a. Present perceived development issues of the ICCs/IPs in the country.
b. Investigate on violations committed against indigenous communities.
c. Recommend initiatives to address these problems incorporating thereby both
national and international measures such as the SDGs of the UN.
d. Present a model of your action plans or policy interventions to help ICCs/IPs
mitigate the dangers or risks brought by these issues.

3.1. Introduction
This chapter presents some of the perceived experiences plights, issues and/or
concerns of the indigenous peoples and/or communities across the country. These
issues are associated to the country’s pursuit of national development,
interpretation of laws, rules, and regulations, among others. Primarily, policies and
IPs customs and traditions do not coincide and these results to conflict and
misunderstanding which could lead to prejudice. Another areas of conflict rest on
access and effectiveness of the justice system, conflicting policies of national
government agencies and its instrumentalities, security on persons, liberties and
properties of the IPs/ICCs. Significantly, in this chapter you will learn the causes of
these plights and your ideas will be elicited to help these people. On the face of
these, you will have to recommend, on how you, as citizens contribute to the
discussion and help the indigenous peoples and/or communities of this country
live a peaceful life where customs and traditions breathe with colours and thrive
beyond the test of time and modernization. The said contribution is only a part of
the myriads of activities and exercises that you will have to perform and carry out.
These activities and exercises are designed to achieve the ends of this Chapter.

3.2 Topics/Discussion (with Assessment/Activities)

BRAIN-BUILD
Activity Title: Becoming an IP Advocate
Instructions:

1. Perform the following activities and use any writing implements to deliver the
same. Be creative.
Activity 1
Present perceived issues and concerns confronting indigenous peoples on the areas
under discussion.
Activity 2
A. Formulate policy interventions that would address the listed plights of the
indigenous communities. Create models of your action plans.
B. Develop a project showcasing a holistic conservation and development initiative that
would promote IP rights or address the issues faced by the IPs. Students must
present their models

(Students have the prerogative to choose between A and B and will be given the
opportunity to work with a team with a maximum of 4 members)

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 43
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
2. Present your outputs either print or virtual.

General Instruction for Submission of Outputs:

Use separate sheets in accomplishing the activities, quizzes and/or exercises
contained in this module. Compile in a folder and submit as scheduled.
(G.G. GODIN)

3. Rubric
CRITERIA PT. SCORE REMARK
1. Cohesiveness of ideas 20
Ideas or information presented is rich and
shows learner’s understanding of the topic
2. Quality of Instructional Aid 15
The learner’s use of appropriate scheme and
material are apparent and led to the
successful delivery of the expected output
3. Quality and Style of Presentation 15
The learner is able to present the assigned
task accurately and in the most
sophisticated way
TOTAL 50

3.2.1.1 Land Rights Recognition and Implementation

Many indigenous communities still suffer from land insecurity. The tenurial
instrument that ICCs/IPS are encouraged to make use of to secure protection of their lands
before IPRA has taken into effect is the CLOA issued by the DAR under Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL/CARP). This seemed not to be helping the indigenous
communities. The titling mechanisms enforced by DENR and DAR are unable to secure
greater protections to the land claims of the indigenous communities afforded under the
IPRA. Additionally, CLOAs are classified as state-awards, hence, could be disposed of or
alienated. Not only that, beneficiaries of CARP have to comply with the qualifications set
forth by law. And once granted, beneficiaries are obliged to observe restrictions on the extent
of usage of the land. The amortization and taxes attached to the CLOA made some
communities to be indebted in millions to the Government for their lands which are actually
tax free under the IPRA. The Government agencies lack the traditional perspective to deal
with Indigenous Peoples. Their understanding of land ownership depends not on their
identity as owners of the land, but instead on land classification created by law. The IPRA
mandates that the existing Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) issued on
ancestral lands and domains by the DAR shall be converted to Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Titles/Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles CADTs/CALTs the NCIP is still taking
the high road to fully accomplish this mandate. Existing prior vested rights resulting from
concession grants and mining permits granted by the government to corporations even
before the IPRA takes effect, create a problem. However, the IPRA itself provides for the
recognition and respect of the property rights within the ancestral domain already existing
and/ or vested upon its effectivity. The establishment of protected zones through laws and
ordinances conflicts with ICCs/IPs’ view of rights on land. Prohibitions would include
prohibiting all forms of gathering of aquatic resources within these areas. As a consequence
the Indigenous Peoples’ livelihoods will seriously be impacted.
C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 44
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
Statutes and Doctrines Applied to IPs Land Ownership Rights

a. The 1987 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution recognized Indigenous Peoples’ ancestral domain rights.
The State is mandated to “protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being”. Moreover, the law
places an obligation on the State to ensure that national development be parallel with
Indigenous Peoples’ rights and interests. Furthermore, the State is under obligation to
recognize and promote “the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development”. This means that before government
decisions or actions are made, especially those that will surely jeopardize the state of
the country’s ICCs/IPs, reference to applicability of customary laws governing
property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral
domain and traditional indigenous institutions shall be given precedence to since the
state must “recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to
preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions”.

b. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997

IPRA acknowledges Indigenous Peoples’ time immemorial collective possession

of their ancestral domains. The said law provides for the guidelines of delineation and
acquisition. It defines ancestral domains as:

“all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters,

coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied
or possessed by ICCs/IPs, themselves or through their ancestors, communally or
individually since time immemorial … It shall include ancestral land, forests, pasture,
residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and
disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of
water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be
exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which their traditionally had access to for
their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs
who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators.”

c. Regalian Doctrine

The American Regime and Philippine State carried through their constitutions
the concept of Regalian Doctrine from the Spanish Colonial system. This Doctrine has
appeared in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Philippine Constitutions and holds that, “all lands
of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the State…”

The IPRA, however, grants no exclusive rights to the Indigenous peoples

ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral domains. The right of the
Indigenous peoples in their ancestral domains includes ownership, but this
“ownership” is expressly defined and limited and does not mention ownership to
minerals, coals, wildlife, flora and fauna in traditional hunting grounds, fish in
traditional fishing grounds, forest or timber in the sacred places, and all other natural
resources found within the ancestral domains. The IPRA does not therefore violate the

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 45
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
Regalian doctrine on the ownership, management and utilization of natural resources,
as declared in the Constitution.

d. Cariño Doctrine

The Mateo Carino Doctrine sprung from the 1901 land registration case for
titling filed by Mateo Cariño, a member of the native Ibaloi ethnic group of the
Benguet Province in the Cordilleras of Northern Luzon, concerning a land covering
148 hectares which the natives occupied since time immemorial as natives of the land.
When Americans came, the land was converted into a military reservation and was
called Camp John Hay reservation in the City of Baguio. This was occupied by the
American soldiers during the American Occupation in the Philippines.

The US Supreme Court granted the petition and recognized Carino’s rights
over the property, under claim of “native title”. According to Chief Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Mateo Carino Doctrine, that recognizes as valid land rights established
by testimonies or memories that the land has been held, occupied and utilized in ownership
since time immemorial by indigenous populations.

3.2.1.2 Self Determination, Self -Determined Development & Free Prior Informed Consent

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, treaties and the IPRA, have
recognized indigenous peoples’ inherent right to self-determination. Vital to the exercise of
this right is guaranteeing ICCs/IPs full and effective participation in all decisions relating to
their rights and interests, and obtaining their Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in
relation to any decisions that may impact their lives and subsistence. For the ICCs/IPs in the
Philippines, control over and respect for their decision-making processes and institutions is
a prerequisite for the realization of a culturally appropriate sustainable and self-determined
development path. However, neither treaties nor laws did mention the right to put on hold
or suspend projects that have failed to comply with the consultation process. Neither the
fundamental requirements are respected in the actual practice particularly in mining, dam
and mini hydro projects, quarrying, protected area system within the ancestral domain.
Mining concessions are granted while CADT’s are pending as in the case of the Mangyans of
Mindoro and Mandaya of Caraga, Davao, Oriental Mindanao.

Moreover, indigenous communities in the country have criticized the never ending
formulation and drafting process of the FPIC guidelines. For most ICCs/IPs, the draft lacks
of transparency and not providing for sufficient participation of ICCs/IPs concerned. Rather
than providing clear and simple mechanisms for the realization of the inherent right to self-
determination and land rights. The current FPIC guidelines have in effect rewrapped these
rights into a model that is amenable and more advantageous to the needs and interests of the
mining sector. The repeated revisions of the guidelines have gradually evolve into a set of
rules which impose restrictions on the timeframes and processes of FPIC contrary to the
customs and traditional practices of indigenous communities. The denial of the right of
ICCs/IPs to decide what activities occur in their ancestral domains violate their collective
rights. As a result of externally imposed projects traditional institutions and customs have
been weakened, communities divided and social tensions created between and amongst
indigenous communities, livelihoods based on subsistence agriculture and fishing rendered
unfeasible, humans and livestock have suffered from health problems as access to medicinal
plants were restricted, evictions and homes and community structures demolished and
C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 46
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
sacred sites destroyed. In addition, communities non-violently resisting these developments
for prolonged periods, often through the use of human barricades, have suffered physical
and legal harassment, intimidation and violence that in some cases have resulted in deaths.
Where it is claimed that a community has given its consent this is generally based on divide
and rule processes, which are incompatible with Indigenous Peoples’ traditional decision
making practices and the ‘consensus of all’ requirement mandated by the IPRA. By practice,
FPIC processes are hastily completed if it appears that the ICCs/IPs consent appears
supportive to the corporations. The process is performed without providing ample time for
proper consultations or negotiations to proceed. All the more that respect for traditional
decision making processes and customary laws to rule. On the contrary, manipulation of
indigenous institutions follows. To sum up, the following section outlines the experiences of
the indigenous communities consulted in relation to development projects in their lands, viz:

1. Failure to identify or consult indigenous communities

a. Actual denial of the existence of indigenous communities
b. Discriminatory treatment of migrant indigenous communities
2. Failure to respect for indigenous decision-making
a. Wilful disregard of the traditional indigenous institutions (including ignoring
decisions and rulings of indigenous authorities and legal structures)
b. Imposing predetermined geographic boundaries
c. Discounting prior decisions made by the communities
d. Disregarding dissent and lack of consensus
e. National agencies’ misinterpretation and/or overwriting of local governance laws
3. Inadequate Impact Benefit Agreements
4. Undue influence and coercion

This manifestations are rather products of conflicting interpretations and

implementations of the law. Hence, you must spot the hairline distinctions of the rationalities
of laws and recommend measures to harmonize contradictions.

3.2.1.3 Militarization and Civil and Political Rights

The Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination included in

its report three (3) groups of categories linked to militarization and civil and political rights
violation against indigenous communities, viz:

1. Militarization and Development Projects

The practice of embedding military detachments forces and/or law enforcers

within or in close proximity to indigenous communities has become increasingly
common in areas targeted for development programs or counter-insurgency
operations of the government. Because indigenous territories or settlements are
usually situated within these rich in natural resources, Indigenous Peoples suffer
disproportionate impacts of militarization and the national development projects in
terms of their social, cultural, economic and political determination. The general trend
of military or police presence within mining and logging operations and plantations
is also common. Encounters with the government troops and other breakaway groups
affect the peace in communities, worst, would oftentimes result in violence,
displacement, intimidation and even killings.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 47
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
2. Policy of paramilitary build-up in indigenous territories

Creation of paramilitary units or deputized military groups organized as

adjunct to the Armed Forces of the Philippine are creating havoc amongst indigenous
communities. This is done through recruitment of members of indigenous
communities into the military and the establishment of paramilitary units within
indigenous communities are among the components of the National Internal Security
Plan for Indigenous Peoples (NISP-IP) which is the nationwide anti-insurgency
military campaign, of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). The NISP-IP is the
particular application of the counterinsurgency program to Indigenous Peoples. It
includes recruitment of the members of indigenous communities into the military. The
adoption of this strategy where indigenous communities are being made extensions
of the AFP counter-insurgency measures, the government, in essence, treats
indigenous communities as a tool and an expendable force in its battle with the rebel
groups. Paramilitary forces can serve to weaken indigenous community cohesion,
unity and trust and foster a culture of fear in communities. Example of this is when
the AFP designed the Task Force Gantangan to be part of its counter-terrorism
strategy. Among other paramilitary groups that are primarily composed of
Indigenous Peoples are ALAMARA, Alsa Masa-Lumad Movement, Bungkatol
Liberation Force (BULIF), Wild Dogs, Bagani Force, Salakawan Force, all in Mindanao
and the Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army (CPLA) in the Cordillera.

3. Labeling of Indigenous Peoples as Rebels

UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, Professor Rodolfo

Stavenhagen, revealed in his report that, “members of indigenous communities are
sometimes accused of rebellion or engaging in “terrorist” activity. In the context of the armed
conflict that still prevails in the countryside, indigenous communities and organizations are
often victimized and their human rights abused”.

The growing insurgency in Visayas and Mindanao and with the rebels seeking
refuge in the densely forested areas of these regions, especially within the settlements
of the ICCs/IPs, exposes these indigenous people or groups to the danger of being
caught between the rebels and the government. On one side the rebels, who would
continue to defy the orders of the government until their ideologies are imposed and
forces of the government on the other, which, vested with the right to exist and
preserve its existence, will continue to defend the State from those who would take or
would attempt to take it down. Without peace, ICCs/IPs, are at all times susceptible
to collateral attacks and damages.

3.2.1.4 Access to Justice

Under the existing policies of the government, it is provided that the ICCs/IPs shall
have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution
institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices
within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal system
and with internationally recognized human rights. The IPRA further provides for the
primacy of customary law in disputes involving Indigenous Peoples. It mandates the NCIP
to uphold this primacy, stating that no dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties
have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws and that any doubt or

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 48
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
ambiguity in the application of laws shall be resolved in favor of the ICCs/IPs. However,
these provisions are subject to conformity with the national legal system which is under the
administration and supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Because of this, the
application of the IPRA provisions are limited in application in so far as the customary
traditional and indigenous justice system is concerned. As a result ICCs/IPs view these
policies as something that bring inadequacy in terms of the State’s commitment under the
1987 Constitution to recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural
communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions.

By experience, communities such as the Subanen of Bayog and the Subanon of Mount
Canatuan have asserted their right to use their customary laws and their commonly accepted
indigenous justice systems. They have made decisions or resolutions in relation to issues of
access to their lands, representation of the community, NCIP responsibility and corporate
behavior in their ancestral domains. State’s agents responsible for the enactment of laws and
pronouncements on cases are often not responsive to the nuances of traditions or cultures of
the indigenous communities. Unfortunately, there is a lack of awareness of Indigenous
Peoples’ rights and a lack of understanding of their culture and inadequate training on these
matters within the legal system at all levels. That is why for some ICCs/IPs discrimination
exists in the courts. The complexity of the laws of the States on one hand and the customs on
the other results conflicting views that needs to be harmonized or resolved. On this part,
education and extensive research would play a big role in the understanding of these
contrary views.

The Alternative Law Groups Inc., (ALG), an alliance of 20 Philippine legal

organizations dedicated in defending the rights of marginalized sectors and groups,
conducted a study in 2003. The purpose of which is to identify the factors contributing to the
lack or inadequate access to justice of Indigenous Peoples. Here are the results of their study:

1. Lack of understanding of judges on the indigenous communities’ tribal laws and

customary practices;
2. Limited number of lawyers who are willing to handle cases for the poor and
marginalized groups.
3. Expensive fees for lawyers’ services that the poor cannot afford.
4. Non-recognition of paralegals from communities who are not given the opportunity
to assist in cases, or, worse, branded as subversives;
5. General public perception that Government lawyers are not competent and efficient
in handling cases involving poor and marginalized groups, and sometimes favor the
group litigants’ adversaries.
6. Prohibitive costs of court litigation, including direct and indirect expenses.
7. Lack of financial support for pauper litigants, especially in criminal cases where they
are required to post bail bonds for their temporary liberty.
8. Lack of effective witness protection program at the trial courts in rural areas.
9. Discriminatory treatment of litigants who are members of indigenous cultural
communities.
10. Problem with certain structures, systems and processes in the judiciary and justice
system, which obstruct access to justice which include:

a. Inadequacy of grievance machinery against erring judges.

b. Hostile atmosphere in courts that alienates poor litigants.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 49
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
c. Absence of community participation in the selection of judges.
d. Lack of judges and prosecutors, particularly in remote areas.
e. Very stringent requirements for petitions before the Supreme Court and
dismissal of cases due to technicality
f. The use of English instead of the local dialects in court proceedings.
g. Conflict between indigenous people’s customary laws and the justice system,
and the general non-recognition by the justice system of the indigenous
people’s tribal laws.
h. Problems related to the low budget allocation for the judiciary.

3.2.1.5 Livelihoods and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The IPRA also calls for the adoption of special measures to ensure Indigenous Peoples
enjoyment of these rights. Despite these national and international obligations of the
Government of the Philippines clear de-facto discrimination exists in relation to Indigenous
Peoples enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights. However, after his mission
to the Philippines in 2002, the then UN Special Rapporteur, Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen,
reported:
“Various surveys and studies also report that Indigenous Peoples’ human
development indicators are lower and poverty indicators are higher than those of the rest of
society. While there are no systematic, disaggregated statistics to support these findings,
there appears to be a valid correlation between lower human development indicators and the
high density of indigenous populations in certain provinces. The income of Indigenous
Peoples is still below average.”

The International Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)

have identified threats and violations to the right of Indigenous Peoples to food and
traditional livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples as a result of modern agricultural and related
development policies, programs and projects imported into and implemented in indigenous
areas. Such as mining, dam construction operations and land conversion in areas of rich
biodiversity, modern agricultural techniques, and militarization and counter-insurgency
measures of the AFP, among others. Although these programs and measures are valid as it
is part of the strategies employed by the government to promote national development, these
somehow pose impacts on the lives of the indigenous peoples. The threat of global warming
is a world-wide problem that is not only felt by the mainstream communities. Indigenous
communities in the Philippines are also feeling the impacts of climate change. In recent years
Indigenous Peoples in the Cordillera Mountains have suffered loss of agricultural vigour,
which is the main source for their subsistence and their livelihoods, as a result of exceptional
cold winters. This, combined with drought during the summer months and strong typhoons
later in the season, threatens the communities’ food security.

3.2.1.6 Protection of Indigenous Beliefs and Sacred Sites

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, with its recognition of Indigenous Peoples
inherent rights and guarantee of the freedom to exercise and enjoy religious worship, marked
a change in the official position of the State towards indigenous beliefs. Implicit in the
Indigenous Peoples’ right to culture is the right to maintain and practice their belief systems.
A fundamental component of the belief systems of many Indigenous Communities in the
Philippines is the respect for sacred sites. Indigenous Peoples throughout the Philippines

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 50
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
have maintained their traditional belief systems since time immemorial. Under the IPRA, the
State is also committed to take ‘effective measures, in cooperation with the ICCs/IPs
concerned to ensure that indigenous sacred places, including burial sites, be preserved,
respected and protected’ thereby guaranteeing ICCs/IPs their ‘right to manifest, practice,
develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right
to maintain, protect and have access to their religious and cultural sites. The IPRA’s
requirement to obtain that Indigenous Peoples’ FPIC was an element of this protection of
their sacred places. In addition, the Philippines has ratified a range of international treaties
which recognize the right to non-discrimination with regards to religious practice including
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ICERD, ICCPR and ICESCR. The following seven
cases were identified in the Shadow report consultation process as illustrative of the trend of
the Government’s failure to protection Indigenous Peoples cultures, beliefs and sacred sites:

1. Destruction of Subanon’s sacred Mount Canatuan

2. Threat to Manobo-Pulangiyon sacred grounds
3. Threat to Subanen’s sacred Mount Pinukis mountain range
4. Damage to Mangyan burial sites
5. Inundation of Ibaloi burial sites
6. Intrusion into Buhid Mangyan sacred areas
7. Destruction of Manobo burial ground

Recent Study on the Conditions of IPs/ICCs in the Country

Hagen and Minter (2019) conducted a study on the social and environmental plights of
the Philippine’s hunter-gatherer community, the Agtas. They have argued through their study
entitled, Displacement in the Name of Development. How Indigenous Rights Legislation Fails to Protect
Philippine Hunter-Gatherers, that the Agtas are grabbed of their lands in the name of
development. The non-stopped displacement occurring in the country’s indigenous
communities are attributed to the implementation of development policies of the
government. Accordingly, they have identified cultural and legal determinants that led the
Agtas displacement. These determinants are lifted from the study which are as follows, viz:

 Institutional competition
Dimasalansan, where Agtas thrive, is situated in one of the remotest and
poorest regions of the Philippines, and economic strategies towards developing the
region have historically focused on “tapping” its natural resources. While the forestry
and mining sectors have long dominated the region’s economy, tourism development
is central to its development aspirations for the current period (NEDA 2017). As this
development paradigm is naturally biased towards proponents of development
projects, the interests of different government agencies do not all have equal weight.

 Cultural misconceptions
Agta’s mobility implies “rootlessness” and consequentially, indicates that they
can live anywhere, as is evident from above quoted statements by local government
officials. Such stereotypes of Agta as wandering nomads conveniently downplay their
strong sense of place. Second, the above cited prediction of the road facilitating Agta’s
transitioning from hunting-gathering to sedentary farming reveals the paternalistic
misconception that a settled life will be a better life, which has characterized
government institutions’ view of Agta for centuries (see Minter 2017). However,

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 51
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
especially when it happens forcefully and rapidly, sedentarization brings great risks
to previously mobile peoples. Often, sedentarization programs are implemented on
marginal land where livelihood options are limited (e.g. Headland and
Headland 1997; Awuh 2015). Alarmingly, Page et al. (2018) demonstrate that
sedentarized Agta experience higher occurrence of parasitic infection and higher child
mortality, due to the combination of increased population densities and externally
imposed, culturally insensitive sanitation and medical service provisioning.

 Legal uncertainty
FPIC is arguably the most powerful instrument to create legal certainty for
indigenous groups. The fact that it hasn’t worked to that effect in the Philippines
(Minter et al. 2012; Cruz et al. 2013; Buenafe-Ze and Telan 2016; Bracamonte 2018)
often rests in a lack of meaningful, genuine and culturally sensitive implementation
(Persoon and Minter 2018). A key challenge here is representation, as significant
heterogeneity in attitudes towards land use may exist within communities, and
individual preferences do not simply aggregate into a collective viewpoint (Nikolakis
et al. 2016). Meaningful representation in FPIC procedures is specifically problematic
among hunter-gatherers, who often do not recognize formal leadership. While
individuals are selectively appointed by project proponents as representatives or
spokespersons of the larger Agta community, they lack real authority or political
power. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Agta signatories have been presented
with the full range of possible consequences of road construction. The Agta’s situation
of overwhelming legal uncertainty in a country with extensive indigenous rights
legislation underscores that very often “the law is not enough” (Castillo and
Castillo 2009) to protect marginalized peoples against accumulation by dispossession.
Indeed, key conditions for generating legal certainty (Otto 2002) are not met.

IWGIA: The Igorot, the Lumad and the Mangyan

According to the, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), a global
human rights organisation dedicated at promoting, protecting, and defending Indigenous
Peoples’ rights, the indigenous groups in the mountains of northern Luzon are collectively
known as Igorot, indigenous peoples in the Philippines have retained much of their
traditional, pre-colonial culture, social institutions and living practices. In general, they live
in geographically isolated areas with lack of access to basic social services and few
opportunities for major economic activities, education or political participation. In contrast,
commercially valuable natural resources such as minerals, forests, and rivers are found
mainly in their areas, which makes them continuously vulnerable to aggression against
development and land grabbing. It could be inferred from these literatures that development
efforts of the government such as, but not limited to, mining and energy projects in
indigenous lands and domains continuously affect the social, cultural, political, and
economic life of the indigenous peoples. While the increasing knowledge gap on population
count of IPs/ICCs remain a challenge. The last census of 2010 included an ethnic variable for
the first time. However, an official figure for the indigenous peoples of the Philippines has
yet arrived, and it is estimated that the country's indigenous population is between 10% and
20% of the national population, which currently stands at around 102.9 million (IWGIA 2019).

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 52
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities

Quiz # 1 Score: _____________

Name: __________________________________ Date: ______________
Direction. Each of the segment of the quiz are instructions. Read each of the instruction and
enjoy your work.
Part I. Instruction: This is a prelude to your intervention policy where IPs/ICCs can draw
benefit from. Below are categories of rights. In each of these rights, identify at least five (5)
possible issues and/or concerns that confront the communities. Then, indicate the strategies
and/or actions you will take to address them and help these communities to thrive
holistically. (40pts.)

ACTIONS/
ISSUES/CONCERNS
INTERVENTIONS
Social 1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
Political Same… Same…
Cultural Same… Same…
Economic Same… Same…

Part II. Instruction: Help the IPs/ICCs reach the international platform by relating their
issues/concerns to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Under this part of the test, the
SDGs will be presented and associate issues/concerns of the IPs/ICCs to each of these goals.
(10pts.)

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 53
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
BREAKDOWN VIEWS

Answer the following questions by reflecting on important bits and pieces of information
and/or details learned from your readings.

SUBJECT:
Instruction: Select a topic from the development issues discussed above and answer the following
questions.
INQUIRY KEYWORD ANSWER EXPLAIN YOUR EVIDENCE
1. What category does this problem
belongs to?
2. What causes this problem to
arise?
3. What ICCs/IPs rights are
compromised by this problem?
4. Is there any agency supposedly
responsible for this problem?
5. Is there any laws, rules or policies
existing for the resolution of this
problem?
6. Is there any non-government
organization or civil society groups
working for the resolution of this
problem?
7. Is this problem old or new? Or is it
big or small?
8. Is the impact of this problem
extends to women and children?
9. If you are affected by it, how
would you feel?
10. How would you solve this?

BRANCH-IT-OUT
Broaden your thoughts about the picture/concept and establish connections between
them to make the main concept relevant and meaningful.

A.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 54
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
B. Associate each of these pictures to words to complete the message.

______________________ ______________________

______________________ ______________________

MAKE A REAL DEAL

Help the ICCs/IPs understand concepts by establishing the dichotomy of
the two (2) important concepts below.

CARIÑO DOCTRINE REGALIAN DOCTRINE

________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 55
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities

Quiz # 2 Score: _____________

Name: __________________________________ Date: ______________

Part I. Identification. Based on the cues presented, identify the principles or concepts
applicable to each item. Spell the words correctly. WRONG spelling is WRONG.

____________ 1. Important requirement in the exercise of self-determination.

____________ 2. Units created as counter-insurgency measure of the AFP
____________ 3. It means that all lands and resources belong to the State, unless
there is a proof to the contrary.
____________ 4. Is being required before NCIP could act on a case or dispute.
____________ 5. Fundamental component of belief systems of most ICCs/IPs
____________ 6. True or False. Only large-scale utilization is allowed to IPs/ICCs
____________ 7. True or False. FPIC is sought after projects are implemented
____________ 8. True or False. Climate change affects IPs/ICCs supply chain
____________ 9. True or False. National development may endanger IPs/ICCs
____________ 10. True or False. FPIC applies to all government projects
____________ 11. True or False. Regalian doctrine was first introduced by Spain
____________ 12. True or False. Native title was introduced in Mateo Cariño case
____________ 13. True or False. CADT is a proof of ancestral land ownership
____________ 14. True or False. A pechen is an indigenous institution
____________ 15. True or False. IPs can decide on matters affecting them

Part II. Discussion. Provide what is being required under each item. Please spell the words
correctly.

1. What is the distinction between civil and political rights? (5pts.)

2. Briefly explain how the national development of the government impacts the civil and
political rights of the ICCs/IPs. (5pts.)
3. List at least five (5) issues and/or concerns on access to justice system. (5pts.)
4. From the duly listed issues and/or concerns above, provide at least five (5) actions
and/or applicable remedies. (5pts.)
5. List at least five (5) instances where free prior and informed consent is seen as very
much relevant.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 56
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
3.3 References

EED Philippine Partners' Task Force for Indigenous Peoples' Rights, e. a. (2009). Philippines
Indigenous Peoples ICERD Shadow Report. Regional Office, Santiago, Chile: OHCHR.
Retrieved from:
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD//PHL/INT_CERD_NGO_PHL_75_9922_
E.pdf

Carino vs Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, 212 U.S. 449 (Supreme Court February
23, 1909).

RA 8371, Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997. Retrieved from:

https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8371_1997.html

De Vera, E. (2007) Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines: A Country Case Study. PAFID
Presented at the RNIP Regional Assembly, Hanoi, 20-26 August 2007. Retrieved from:
http://www.iapad.org/wp content/uploads/2015/07/devera_ip_phl.pdf

Hagen, R. V., & Minter, T. (2020). Displacement in the Name of Development. How Indigenous
Rights Legislation Fails to Protect Philippine Hunter-Gatherers. Society & Natural
Resources, 33(1), 65-82.

IWGIA, (2019). Indigenous peoples in Philippines. November 3, 2020 retrieved from

https://www.iwgia.org/en/philippines.html

Molintas, J.M. (2015) The Philippine Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle for Land and Life: Challenging
Legal Texts. Arizona Journal. Retrieved from:http://arizonajournal.org/wp
content/uploads/2015/11/Molintas.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1YJ2_ROEcCYcY4Hqzi4wJVExm
55kK6WS-RPMvmGEUw5kkpmXdk4uKcn4s

Ty, R. (2010) Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines: Continuing Struggle. Retrieved from:
https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section2/2010/12/indigenous-peoples-in-
the-philippines-continuing-struggle.html

Torres, L. (2016) Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines: Perspectives on Inclusion. Retrieved

from: http://www.globi-observatory.org/indigenous-peoples-in-the-philippines-
perspectives-on-inclusion/

TEBTEBBA. (2016) Situation of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines: Submission to the 59th
Session of CESCR. Retrieved from: http://www.tebtebba.org/index.php/content/383-
situation-of-indigenous-peoples-in-the-philippines-submission-to-the-59th-session-of-
cescr

Harper's Weekly cartoon from February 12, 1870 by Thomas Nast.

http://dcalver.weebly.com/conflict-with-native-americans.html

Station, C. (n.d.). Igorot. https://clipartstation.com/igorot-clipart-6/. Clipart Station,

https://clipartstation.com/.

Deviant Art. Indigenous Women and Peoples. February 2013. James Claridades.
https://www.deviantart.com/squeegool/gallery/all

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 57
3 Philippine Indigenous Communities
Lumad Creative. Discover the Best Places in Mindanao. 2018. The Lumad List
https://thelumadlist.com/

CLIPARTBARN. Nature Clip Art #10127. 2016. http://clipartbarn.com/nature-clip-art_10127/

Philippine Official Gazette. DepEd issues Indigenous Peoples Education. August 12, 2015. (IPEd)
Curriculum Framework. Twitter.Com.

Balawag, G. (2014, December 6) Tebtebba. Indigenous People’s International Center for Policy
Research and Education. Retrieved from: https://www.slideshare.net/CIFOR/03-grace-
balawag

3.4 Acknowledgment

The images, tables, figures and information contained in this module were taken from
the references cited above.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay