CRUZ, Jaden D.

History 3 C
Think Piece 1: IPRA

The IPRA or the Indigenous People Rights Act aims to protect and promote the rights of IPs in a
way to preserve their culture and traditions and livelihood in non discriminatory manner.
However, this act does not hold true in many instances of injustices done to various IP groups
here in the Philippines.

First, is the issue of ancestral lands that are being damaged through environmentally destructive
projects such as large scale logging and mining. It was stated in the IPRA that ancestral land is
different from ancestral domain wherein the latter is owned by the IP community while the
former can only be utilized by the IP community unless it was interrupted by war, displacement
by force, consequence of government projects and dealings entered by the government and or
private companies/corporations. This statement becomes problematic for the IPs since large
companies can legally use these lands to their liking such as in the case of subjecting these
lands into large mining sites that damages not only the land and the people directly inhabiting
these lands but also endangers the lives and livelihood of the IPs surrounding the area.

Moreover, not only ancestral land but also legally owned by IPs ancestral domains are being
destroyed. According to the report of Cabico (2022), 49% of mining projects in the country and
87% of forest areas covered by large-scale logging were in conflict with registered ancestral
domains. This only proves that even though IPRA tries to protect and preserve the rights of IPs,
it fails to secure their lands which are considered vital in the everyday life of an individual.

Furthermore, under IPRA, Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is implemented in order to
protect their right to self governance and empowerment. FPIC is an instrument for the IPs to
ensure their active role in defining their own lives as it gives them the liberty to choose which
projects, programs, or activities will be accepted or rejected to be conducted in their ancestral
domains. In other words, it gives them the power to rule over themselves in the case of external
forces are in conflict with them. However, according to the study of Penalba (2011), there are
many instances that the FPIC process was violated which led to failure of self determination.
Also according to her, even the state, and its agents such as the DENR, EMB, and NCIP
violated the FPIC. She also stated that these cases of violations are due to inconsistent
implementation of FPIC principle led by the misconception how it is understood and
operationalized.

Finally, according to Manuel (2004), as cited by Penalba (2011), amendments to the FPIC must
be done. For example, the FPIC must be secured in all stages of a project not only during the
initial stage. As well as consents given to projects should also be allowed to be revoked,
terminated, or renegotiated at any given time. Lastly, ancestral domains and ancestral lands
should be clearly delineated properly in order to prevent utilization of lands that are considered
extension of the livelihood of the IPs. These are only some of the solutions that can be done in
order to make the FPIC as well as the IPRA itself serve their primary purpose in protecting the
rights and interests of the Indigenous peoples.
References:
Cabico, G. (2022, November 7). Half of ancestral lands threatened by destructive projects.
Philstar Global.
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/climate-and-environment/2022/11/07/2222087/half-an
cestral-lands-threatened-destructive-projects-report

Penalba, M. 2011. The Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Governance and Empowerment. The
Cordillera Review 3, 1(2), 191-215.
https://thecordillerareview.upb.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/8-TCR-III-1-and-2_P
enalba_The-Indigenous-Peoples-Right-to-Self-Governance-and-Empowerment.pdf