A Primer

on
Rights of

Indigenous
Cultural Communities /
Indigenous Peoples
(ICCs/IPs) by

SULPICIO G. GAMOSA, JR.

Bachelor of Arts, West Visayas State University, 1994
Bachelor of Laws, University of San Agustin, 2000
ATTORNEY VI / REGIONAL HEARING OFFICER
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 1
REGION VI & VII
Iloilo City
1. What are indigenous cultural communities /
indigenous peoples (ICCs / IPs)?

refer to a group of people or homogenous societies

identified by self-ascription or ascription of others,
who have continuously lived as organized community
on communally bounded and defined territory,
and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial,
occupied, possessed and utilized such territories,
sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions
and other distinctive cultural traits,
or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural
inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures,
became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos.
- Section 3 [h], first sentence, Republic Act 8371,
otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA)
 also refers those who are considered indigenous on account of
descent from the populations which inhabited the country
at the time of conquest or colonization,
or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures,
or the establishment of present state boundaries,
who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural
and political institutions,
but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains
or who may have resettled outside their traditional domains.
- Section 3 [h], second sentence, IPRA
 In Philippine Constitutional Law, indigenous peoples
pertains to groups of Filipinos who have retained a high degree
of continuity from pre-Conquest culture.
- Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 4, page 34.

They have once been referred to as

non-Christian Filipinos,
cultural minorities, or
national minorities or plainly
minorities.
 In the absence of recorded history, how the
Philippines came to be inhabited by its native
population can be explained by either of two
(2) schools of thoughts.
One view, generally linked to Professor H. Otley Beyer, suggests
the wave theory of migration a series of arrivals in the archipelago
bringing in different types and levels of culture. The Negritos, dark-skinned
pygmies, came between 30,000 to 20,000 B.C. (supposedly through land
bridges as Negritos are not known seafarers; deglaciation supposedly caused
the oceans to rise and sank these land bridges and the once single exposed land
mass attached to mainland Asia by way of Indonesia was reduced to this present
Philippine archipelago, stranding the non-seafaring Negritos), but their
relatively inferior culture did not enable them to overcome pressures from the
second wave, the Indonesians A and B who came about 5,000 and 3,000 B.C.
and occupied the coast and downriver settlements, pushing the former inward.
Finally, a third wave of Malay migrations with a more advanced metal age
technology arrived between 500 B.C. and 1,500 A.D. who pushed the
Indonesian groups inland and occupied much of the coastal, lowland and
downstream areas.
 Routes of
ancient
migrants
according to
Professor
Bayers
theory of
migration.
(F. Landa Jocana,
Anthropology of
the Filipino
People I, Filipino
Prehistory
[Manila:
PUNLAD
Research House,
Inc., 1998],
p. 56)
Land connections of the Philippine archipelago witrh Asia during the Pleistocene Period (Ice Age).
(F. Landa Jocana, Anthropology of the Filipino People I, Filipino Prehistory [Manila: PUNLAD Research House, Inc., 1998], p. 87)
 A second view critical of the wave theory postulated by Dr. Robert
Fox, F. Landa Jocano, Alfredo Evangelista, and Jesus Peralta maintains that
the Negritos, Indonesians and Malays stand co-equal as ethnic groups without
any one being dominant, racially or culturally, and random and unstructured
advent of these groups, as suggested by overlapping of otherwise similar racial
strains in both upland and lowland cultures or coastal and inland communities.
Philippine ethnic groups considered Indigenous
Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples
Presently, Philippine indigenous peoples inhabit the interiors
and mountains of Luzon, Mindanao, Mindoro, Palawan, Panay,
Negros, Samar, Leyte, and the Sulu group of islands. There are
about 110 ethnic groups in the Philippines which have been
identified and recognized as indigenous, that is, still possessing a
significant degree pre-Spanish conquest culture. They are
composed of 110 tribes/ethnic groups and are as follows:

1. In the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) and

Region I Kankaney, Ibaloi, Bontoc, Tinggian or
Itneg, Ifugao, Kalinga, Apayao, Aeta or Agta or
Pugot, and Bago of Ilocos Norte and Pangasinan.
2. In Region II the Ibanag of Isabela and Cagayan;
Ilongot of Quirino and Nueva Vizcaya; Gaddang of
Quirino and Nueva Vizcaya, Itawis of Cagayan;
Ivatan of Batanes, Aeta of Cagayan, Quirino and
Isabela.
3. In Region III Aeta, Baluga or Dumagats.
4. In Region IV Dumagats of Aurora and Rizal;
Remontado of Aurora, Rizal and Quezon; the
Mangyans (Alangan-Mangyan, Batangan-Mangyan,
Buid- or Buhid-Mangyan, Hanunuo-Magyan and
Iraya-Mangyan of Mindoro); Tadyawan of
Occidental Mindoro; Cuyonen, Palawanon, Tagbanua
Tao't bato and Batak of Palawan.
5. In Region V Agta, subdivided into the sub-tribes
of Agta Tabangon, Agta Cimaron, Agta Taboy and
the Kabihugs of Camarines Norte.
6. In Region VI Ati of Negros Occidental, Iloilo,
Antique, and Capiz; the Sulod (also called Bukidnon)
of Panay and Northern Negros; the Corolano of
Carol-an in Kabankalan, Negros
Occidental/Ayungon, Negros Oriental; and the
Bukidnon/Magahat of Southern Negros.

7. In Region VII Ata and Bukidnon/Magahat of

Negros Oriental, Eskaya of Bohol.

8. In Region VIII Manobos and Mamanuas.

9. In Region IX the Samal, Subanon and Yakan of
Zamboanga; the Badjao numbering about 192,000 in
Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga; the Kalibugan of Basilan.

10. In Region X Numbering 1.6 million in Region X

alone, the IPs are: the Banwaon, Bukidnon, Matigsalog
and Talaanding of Bukidnon; the Camiguin of
Camiguin Island; the Higa-unon of Bukidnon and
Misamis Occidental; the Tigwahanon of Misamis
Oriental and Misamis Occidental, and the Umayamnon
of Bukidnon.
11. In Region XI -- There are about 1,774,065 IPs
in Region XI. They are tribes of the Dibabaon
and Mansaka of Davao del Norte; B'laan, Kalagan,
Langilad, T'boli and Talaingod of Davao del Sur;
Mandaya of Davao Oriental; the Mangguangon
of the Davao Provinces, and Bagobo of Davao del Sur.
12. In Region XII -- Manobo Blit, Bagobo,
Mangguangon, Tagakaolo, Tasaday and Ubo
of South Cotabato; Ilianen, Tiruray, Maguindanao,
Maranao, Tausug, Yakan/Samal, and Iranon in the rest
of the Cotabato provinces.
13. In Region XIII -- the Manobo and Umayamnon
of the Agusan provinces; Mandaya of the Surigao
provinces; Mamamanua of Surigao del Sur,
the Higa-unon, Manobo and Umayamnon of the
Agusan provinces, and Tigwahanon of Agusan del Sur.

-- Taken from the list of IPs submitted by Rep. Gregorio

Andolana to the House of Representatives during the
deliberations on H.B. No. 9125Interpellations of
August 20, 1997, pp. 00086-00095. Lost tribes such as
the Lutangan and Tatang have not been included.
Major indigenous ethnic groups
in Luzon
 Major indigenous ethnic groups
in Mindoro

Major indigenous ethnic groups

in Palawan
Major indigenous ethnic groups in Mindanao
Major indigenous ethnic groups in Panay
Major indigenous ethnic groups in Negros
ICCs/IPs in Western Visayas
So far, in Western Visayas there are only two
(2) ethnic groups which have been identified
and recognized as ICCs/IPs the Negritos or
Atis1/Atas2 and the Bukidnons.
1How Negritos are referred to in Panay and Guimaras.
2How Negritos are referred to in Negros.
 Atis/Atas are recognizable by their distinct
physical characteristics of dark brown skin,
kinky hair and relatively shorter stature,
intermarriage of some to non-Atis/non-Atas
notwithstanding. Their truly indigenous way of
life is hunting-gathering and nomadic, but
many have become settled.1
1Especially in the Ati reservation in Sitio Lipata, Brgy. Nagpana,
Barotac Viejo, Iloilo.
 The Atis/Atas, which belong to the Negrito
ethnic group, are among the aboriginal people
of the Philippine archipelago. They can be
found in the islands of Masbate, Panay,
Guimaras, Negros, Cebu, Bohol, Siquijor,
Leyte and Samar. They are genetically-related
to other Negrito ethnic groups in the
Philippines such as the Aeta in Central Luzon,
the Dumagat of Southern Luzon, the Batak
of Palawan, the Agta of Bicol Peninsula, and
the Mamanwa of Mindanao.
 In the absence of recorded history and written documents,
Beyers theory of migration offers the earliest speculation
about Negritos as the first group of migrants to reach the
Philippines during the Pleistocene (Ice Age) about 25,000 B.C.
As theorized by Beyer, the Philippines at this time was
connected to the mainland of Asia by exposed land masses or
land bridges. In the course of time, when the sea level went up
due to climactic changes in the temperate zones (deglaciation),
these land bridges were cut off and sank to the floor of South
China Sea (or West Philippine Sea), possibly a drop of 100
fathoms, thus isolating the non-navigating primitive Negritos
from others of their kind. Ethnographic data on their lifestyle,
material culture, and social organization tend to reveal the
unlikelihood that these highly mobile people had at any time
ever developed a high culture.
 Literally meaning people from the mountains / mountain
people, Bukidnons refer to all non-Aeta/non-Negrito IPs
in the Western and Central Visayan islands of Panay and
Negros, which still possess a significant degree of pre-
Hispanic Malayan culture. Presently estimated by NCIP
Region VI/VII to be around 60,000, the Bukidnon
communities can be found in the central regions of Panay
and Negros. The larger Bukidnon settlements have been
identified by F. Landa Jocano as living in the mountains
of Tapaz and Jamindan in Capiz; in Libacao and Madalag
in Aklan; in Lauaan, Bugasong and Culasi in Antique1;
and in Janiuay, Lambunao, Calinog and Maasin in
Iloilo.2
1Also Valderrama, Antique (Brgys. San Agustin, Culiat and Busog).
2Sulod Society by F. Landa Jocano, Monograph Series No. 2, University of the
Philippines. Quezon City: University of the Philippines (1968).
3Bukidnons of Aklan call themselves Akeanon because they live near Akean (Aklan)
River; those of Capiz Panayanon because they live near Pan-ay River; those of Calinog and
Lambunao, Iloilo Halawudnon because they live near Halawod (now named Jalaur) River. The
Bukidnons of Carol-an Valley in Negros (in the boundary of Kabankalan City, Negros
Occidental and Ayungon, Negros Oriental) call themselves Karulanos because they live on the
banks of Carol-an (Karul-an) River.
 The Panay Bukidnon (also called Sulod/Sunlodnon)
have very rich oral traditions, i.e., pieces of oral
literature passed from one generation to another. The
most notable of these oral traditions is sugidanon
(epic) Hinilawod.
The term "Hinilawod" means Tales of the Halawod River. Hinilawod
is an epic of the Sulod in central Panay.
Recently documented and reduced into writing, it consists of twelve (12)
encyclopedic volumes. Its 28,000+ verses, in Ligbok which is an archaic form
of Kinaray-a, is being chanted, and would take about three (3) days of
continuous recitation when performed in its original form, making it one of
the longest epics known, alongside that of Indias Mahabharata and Tibet's
Epic of King Gesar.
It recounts the story of the exploits of three Sulodnon demigod brothers,
Labaw Donggon, Humadapnon, and Dumalapdap of ancient Panay.

Hinilawod is not just a literary piece, but also a source of information about
culture, religion and rituals of the ancient people of Sulod, showing us that
ancient Filipinos believed in the sacred, in the importance of family honor
and in personal courage and dignity.
 The Panay Bukidnons also have a number of unwritten poems and
songs/chants, e.g., ambahan, ulawhay, dilot, and talda; the Binang
(literally, the Way of the Hawk, which is a courtship dance, and
distinctive costumes and adornments, particularly the pudong (headdress),
walkus (arm band), and biningkit (necklace).
 The Philippines is not unique as a
country with indigenous peoples.
United States American Indians
Canada American Indians and Inuit (Eskimo)
South American countries approximately 48 million
indigenous peoples (native American Indian populations)
The term Indian originated with Christopher Columbus, who thought that he
had arrived in the East Indies while seeking Asia. Later the name was still used
as the Americas at the time were often called West Indies. This has served to
imagine a kind of racial or cultural unity for the aboriginal peoples of the
Americas.
Australia Aborigines
New Zealand Maori
Japan and Russia Ainu
Norway Sami
Native North American People.
Leaders of the Indigenous Kayapo tribe, Mato Grosso, Brazil.
Q'ewar women in a small village
in the rural highlands of Peru.
Sven-Roald Nyst, Aili Keskitalo and Ole Henrik Magga,
the second, third and first president
of the Norwegian Smi Parliament.
 New Zealanders celebrate their country's endorsement of the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
in 2010.
 Baka Pygmy dancers
in the East Province of Cameroon.
Inuit people in a traditional qamutik (sled), Cape Dorset, Canada.
Veddha chief Uruwarige Wannila
Aththo leader of the indigenous
people, Sri Lanka.
Group of Ainu people, 1902 photograph.
 Orang Asli playing a nose flute
near Cameron highlands, Malaysia.
A young Ati, going around the town of Kalibo,
Aklan during the Ati-Atihan Festival.
What is the present state of ICCs/IPs in
general?
ICCs/IPs are among the most marginalized sectors
of Philippine society, having suffered from centuries
of neglect and exploitation. Poverty incidence
is very high, and with ICCs/IPs constituting
about 17% of the nations population:

The government cannot make any meaningful headway

in its anti-poverty thrust without addressing the plight of
the ICCs/IPs.
What is The Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act of 1997 or IPRA?
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 or
IPRA (Republic Act No. 8371) is the law passed by
Philippine Congress and approved by then President
Fidel V. Ramos on October 29, 1997. It was a
consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1728 and House Bill
No. 9125, and was primarily sponsored in the Senate
by Sen. Juan Flavier and in the House of
Representatives by Rep. Gregorio Andolana of North
Cotabato. It took effect on November 22, 1997.
 In a worldwide context, IPRA is the first law
of its kind passed by the national legislature of
a country, specifically providing for the
recognition, protection and promotion of the
rights and welfare of ICCs/IPs.
rights of aborigines of Australia are contained in
court decisions;
those of American Indians of Canada in treaties
between them and Britain held by Canadian courts
to be binding upon the Canadian government
How does IPRA provisions differ from previous
policies and programs of the government?
It will be recalled that the Spaniards implemented
the policy of reduccion (resettlement), i.e., forcing
the native Filipinos to relocate to pueblos (town
centers) for easier Spanish evangelization.

Magellan's Cross:
Symbol
of Roman Catholicsm
The first Christian symbol
in the Philippines
 This policy met stiff resistance from most
Filipino ethnic groups, and history shows that
the Spanish colonizers were not able
to effectively bring Filipino ethnic groups who
are living in the interiors under their control,
and were not even able to conquer
the Mountain Provinces of Northern Luzon
and Mindanao.
Bontoc warriors
Kalinga warriors
 Muhammad Dipatuan Kudarat (or
Qudarat or Corallat) (15811671) was a
Sultan of Maguindanao. During his reign,
he successfully opposed the Spaniards who
attempted to conquer his land and hindered
the Christianization of the island of
Mindanao. He was a direct descendant
of Shariff Kabungsuwan, a Muslim
missionary who brought Islam to the
Philippines between the 13th and 14th
century.
Spaniards tried to conquer his subjects, but failed and were forced to ransom their
soldiers held as captives. After succeeding his father in 1619, he defeated several
tribes and proclaimed his kingdom as the Datu of the Pulangi region. He also
governed a settlement in what is now Cagayan de Oro, and established Misamis
and Bukidnon as his tributaries. Later, he also made friendly relations with
the Spaniards and the Dutch. Governor-General Diego Fajardo Chac signed
a treaty with Qudarat on June 25, 1645, which allowed Spanish missionaries
to establish Christianity in Mindanao, allowing a church built, and trade
in the Sultans territories.
On November 4, 1663, warriors under Sultan Kudarat raided the town of Baybay
in Leyte.
 In Panay, certain Malayan settlements avoided
Spanish colonization by moving upstream the main
river systems of Akean (Aklan) River in Aklan, Pan-
ay River in Capiz and Halawod (now Jalaur) River in
Iloilo and settling in the central regions of the island.
In Negros, an ill-conceived and overzealous attempt
of implementing reduccion culminated in the
historically recorded Manyabog Tragedy in
Kabankalan, when Spanish attempts to convert the
ancient Bukidnon community led by the legendary
Bukidnon chieftain Manyabog ended in a massacre of
that upland community by the Spanish military in
1857.
 The Americans, applying their own domestic
policy on their American Indian populations,
forced tribal Filipinos to live in non-Christian
settlement areas. Act No. 253 created the
Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes (BNCT) to
impelent this policy.
 Even Philippine legal history has not been kind to the
ICCs/IPs, characterized them as peoples with barbarous
practices,1 backward people,2 a low order of
intelligence,3 and uncivilized.4
The 1935 Philippine Constitution was silent on the rights of
tribal Filipinos. Earlier Philippine governments though
(through the Commission on National Integration5 largely
continued the policy of assimilation by the Americans.
1United States President William McKinleys instruction to the Philippine
Commission, April 7, 1900.
2Hearing before the Committee on the Philippines, United States Senate,
Sixty-Third Congress, Third Session, cited in R ubi vs. Provincial Board of
Mindoro.
3The 1915 Supreme Court of the Philippines in U.S. vs. Tubban, Philippine
Reports, Volume 29, pages 434, 436.
4The 1919 Supreme Court of the Philippines in R ubi vs. Provincial Board
of Mindoro, Philippine Reports, Volume 39, pages 660, 680.
5Created by Republic Act No. 1888.
 It was the 1973 Philippine Constitution that first addressed
the plight of national cultural communities, providing that
[t]he State shall consider the customs, traditions, beliefs, and
interest of national cultural communities in the formulation
and implementation of State policies. The Marcos regime
(through the Office of the Presidential Assistant on National
Minorities or PANAMIN)1 espoused a policy of voluntary
integration sought full integration of ethnic groups into the
mainstream Filipino community, and yet recognized the right
of tribal Filipinos to preserve their way of life. The
PANAMIN, however, concentrated funds and resources in
image-building, publicity and impact projects and, in
Mindanao, resorted to a policy of forced resettlement on
reservations, militarization and intimidation.2
1Pursuant to Presidential Decrees Nos. 1017 and 1414.
2Charles MacDonald, Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines: Between
Segregation and Intimidation, Indigenous Peoples of Asia, page 438, ed.
R.H. Barnes, A. Gray and B. Kingsbury published by Association for Asian
Studies (1995).
 Pursuant to the Freedom Constitution, President Corazon C.
Aquino in 1987 abolished the PANAMIN and created the
Office for Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC) and
Office for Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC).1 In
essence outreach agencies, these unwittingly became the
conduit of dole-out programs which, aside from not addressing
genuine concerns of ICCs/IPs like continuing dispossession of
ancestral lands/domains, only led to increased dependence on
government assistance.

1Created by Executive Order Nos. 122-B and 122-C, respectively.

 Finally, the 1987 Philippine Constitution
contained at least six (6) motherhood
provisions which ensure the right ICCs/IPs to
preserve their way of life.1
This Constitution goes even further by
expressly recognizing and guaranteeing the
rights of ownership of ICCs/IPs over their
ancestral domains/lands. IPRA is merely an
enactment of these Constitutional provisions.
1Article II, Section 22; Article VI, Section 5, paragraph 2; Article XII,
Section 5; Article XIII, Section 6; Article XIV, Section 17; and Article XVI,
Section 12.
 In the words of Sen. Juan Flavier, IPRA was enacted

in order to correct the historical inequity

perpetrated upon the ICCs/IPs.

With IPRA, the present thrust of the government, which seems to

be the politically correct one, is empowerment.

EMPOWERMENT, the fashionable word of the 1990s

derived from the works of Brazilian educationalist
Paulo Freire, it means acquiring the awareness and skills
to take charge of ones own environment. It has been roughly
translated to community action, and a radical but called for
departure from the dictatorial top-down approach towards
the more democratic bottoms-up principle. Empowerment
allows people and communities to initiate policies as well as
shape the development policies initiated by others. Grassroots
participation is indispensable because as the Brundtland
Commission (WCED 1987) has put it, without participation,
development will not happen and the environment will be
destroyed.
What are the novel legal
concepts/principles formally
introduced by IPRA?
Admittedly a controversial law,1 IPRA has formally
introduced into the Philippine legal system certain novel legal
concepts.
1The constitutionality of IPRA was challenged directly before the Supreme
Court by no less than Retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani A. Cruz in Cruz et al.
vs.DENR Secretary, NCIP, et al., G. R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000. By a dead
even vote of 7-7, the petition was dismissed because the requisite number of votes
of majority (8) of all members of the Supreme Court to declare a law
unconstitutional was not met.
Novel legal concepts introduced by the IPRA:
1) The recognition that indigenous legal systems
and customary laws and practices co-exist with the
Philippine legal system implanted by Western
colonial powers.1 These indigenous legal systems are
still observed and practiced by ICCs/IPs, and in so far as
these are not incompatible with the national legal system
and internationally recognized human rights, ICCs/IPs
have the right to use their own indigenous legal system
within their communities or even outside of their
communities but the case involves their members.
1Philippine political law is American in origin, while Philippine
civil law and criminal law is Spanish in origin.
2) Primacy of customary laws and practices as far
as ICCs/IPs are concerned, particularly in resolving
land conflicts1 and other forms of conflicts2 among their
members. Only in default of such customary laws and
practices shall complaints be submitted to the Courts of
Justice whenever necessary.3 This is an exception to the
fundamental civil law principle that customs shall be
applied only in default of the law.4
1Section 7 (h), IPRA.
2Section 15, IPRA.
3Section 7 (h), IPRA.
4Article 7, paragraph 1, Civil Code of the Philippines.
3) Native title of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral
lands/domains, which refers to pre-conquest rights to
lands and domains which, as far back as memory
reaches, have been held under a claim of private
ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands
and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held
that way since before the Spanish] conquest.1
1Section 7 (l), IPRA.
4) Indigenous concept of ownership, which sustains
the view that ancestral domains and all resources found
therein shall serve as the material basis of their cultural
integrity, and thus, ancestral domains are the ICCs/IPs
private but community property which belongs to all
generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or
destroyed.2
2Section 5, IPRA.
5) Recognition that ancestral domains/lands
are private property of the ICCs/IPs since time
immemorial, and not public lands belonging to the State1
1Section 5 in relation to Section 3(1), IPRA.

6) Recognition that native title to ancestral

domains/lands are registrable, regardless of the
classification of the land 2
2Even forest /timberlands, mineral lands, lands with slopes of 18
percent or more, and even bodies of water, which are properties which
could not be applied for titling by non-IP Filipinos, are registrable as
parts of ancestral domains.

7) Integration of titles to ancestral domains/lands into

the Torrens system 3
3The NCIP shall register issued certificates of ancestral domain titles
and certificates of ancestral lands titles before the Register of Deeds
in the place where the property is situated (Section 52 [k], IPRA).
8) Creation of a separate agency (the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples) which is
empowered to identify, recognize, delineate (survey)
and issue titles over ancestral domains/lands.1
Before, it is only the regular courts (in the case
of judicial titling) and the Bureau of Lands/DENR
(in case of administrative titling) which have the power
to decree the issuance of land titles.

1Sections 44 (e), 46 (a), 51 to 53, IPRA.

What are the rights of ICCs/IPs
provided for by IPRA?
The rights of ICCs/IPs provided for by IPRA may be
grouped into four (4) categories, namely:
(a) Cultural Integrity1
(b) Rights to Ancestral Domains/Lands2
(c) Self-Governance and Empowerment3
(d) Social Justice and Human Rights.4
1Chapter VI (Sections 29 to 37), IPRA.
2 Id., Chapter III (Sections 4 to 12).
3Id., Chapter IV (Sections 13 to 20).
4Id., Chapter V (Sections 21 to 28).
Cultural Integrity
(1) Recognition of cultural diversity1
The State shall endeavor to have the dignity and diversity
of cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations reflected
in all forms of education, public information and cultural-
educational exchange, and take effective measure
to eliminate prejudice and discrimination
and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations
among ICCs/IPs and all segments of society.
1Section 31, IPRA.
Cultural diversity the quality of diverse or different cultures,
as opposed to monoculture, as in the global monoculture,
or a homogenization of cultures, akin to cultural decay.
For example, before Hawaii was conquered by Europeans,
the culturally diverse Hawaiian culture existed in the world,
and contributed to the worlds cultural diversity.
Now Hawaii has been westernized; the vast majority
of its culture has been replaced with Western or American
culture.
The phrase cultural diversity can also refer
to having different cultures respect each other's differences.
Cultural relativism - the principle that was established as
axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first
few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his
students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887:
...[C]ivilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative,
and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our
civilization goes. It is a concept synthesized in response to
ethnocentrism, the viewpoint that "ones own group is the
center of everything," against which all other groups are
judged. It was the product of synthesis against Western
ethnocentrism, which considers other cultures to be inferior.
It thus suggests cultural sensitivity, open-mindness, and
tolerance to cultures different from ours, since no culture can
rightly be considered superior than others, and no particular
culture can be rightly judged based on the biases and prejudices
of another.
 Boas originally trained in physics and geography, and
argued that one's culture may mediate and thus limit one's
perceptions in less obvious ways. He understood culture
to include not only certain tastes in food, art, and music, or
beliefs about religion. He assumed a much broader notion
of culture, defined as:

the totality of the mental and physical reactions

and activities that characterize the behavior
of the individuals composing a social group
collectively and individually in relation to their
natural environment, to other groups,
to members of the group itself, and of each individual
to himself.
Cross cultural sensitivity -- the quality of being aware and
accepting of other cultures. This is important because what
seems acceptable in some countries can be rude or derogatory
in others.
A person who is culturally sensitive is aware that
there could be differences between their culture
and another persons, and that these differences
could affect their relationship and the way
they communicate with each other.
A culturally sensitive person would understand
other countries traditions and ways of life,
or attempt to learn and apply new understandings.
Importantly, culturally sensitive people attempt to be free
from prejudices and preconceptions about other cultures.
Ethnology to compare and contrast as wide a range of cultures
as possible, in a systematic and even-handed manner.
In the late 19th century, this study occurred primarily
through the display of material artifacts in museums.
Curators typically assumed that similar causes
produce similar effects; therefore, in order to understand
the causes of human action, they grouped similar artifacts
together regardless of provenance. Their aim was
to classify artifacts, like biological organisms,
according to families, genera, and species. Thus organized,
museum displays would illustrate the evolution of civilization
from its crudest to its most refined forms.
(2) Right to State protection of indigenous
culture, traditions and institutions1
The government shall consider indigenous culture,
traditions and institutions in the formulation and application of
national plans and policies.2
1Section 29, IPRA.
2Id.

(3) Right to right to equal access to cultural

opportunities through the formal educational
system, as well as to establish and control their
own indigenous educational system3
3Id., Section 30.
Schools of Living Tradition
Usually a joint project of the NCIP
and the National Commission for Culture and the Arts
(NCCA), a School of Living Traditions (SLT)
is one where a living master/culture bearer
or culture specialist teaches skills and techniques
of doing a traditional art or craft.
The mode of teaching is usually non-formal, oral
and with practical demonstrations. The site maybe
the house of the living master, a community social hall,
or a center constructed for the purpose.
BALAY TURUN-AN or House for Learning is what
the Panay Bukidnon call their Schools for Living Tradition (SLT).
The first of these schools was realized in Garangan, a mountain barangay
near Calinog, Iloilo. This Balay Turun-an is the first SLT in the Visayas
and is headed by the GAMABA Awardee-2001, Federico Caballero.
To balance the western education promoted by the DECS,
the teachers at the Balay Turun-an instruct the children of their village
on weekends in epic chanting, gong playing, binang dancing,
tubok or native embroidery and other aspects of their culture.
They even follow a special study guide, Giya sa Pagtuon,
which covers their rich oral literature, including
sugidanon (epics), ulawhay (long chanted narratives),
talda (chanted repartee), and dilot (chanted love songs).
Initially only one school, the Panay Bukidnon have already established
eight (8) self-sufficient satellite SLTs in several other barangays,
among them Bato-Bato, Sinunod, Siya and Taganhin
in the municipality of Tapaz, Capiz.
 (4) community intellectual rights
(right to practice and revitalize their indigenous cultural
traditions and customs,1
right to control, develop and protect
their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations
including human and other biological and genetic
resources, seeds, traditional medicines and health
practices, medicinal plants, animals and minerals,
indigenous knowledge, systems and practices, knowledge
of the properties of flora and fauna, oral traditions,
literature, designs, and visual and performing arts2)
1Section 32, IPRA.
2Id., Section 34.
 The State shall preserve, protect and develop the past,
present and future manifestations of their cultures
as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual,
religious and spiritual property taken without their
free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of ICCs/IPs
or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.1
Access to biological and genetic resources within ancestral
domains and to indigenous knowledge shall be allowed
only with the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of
ICCs/IPs.2 The State shall recognize the right of ICCs/IPs
to a sustainable agro-technological development.3
1Section 32, IPRA.
2Section 35, IPRA.

3Section 36, IPRA.

 (5) right to religious and cultural sites
and ceremonies
(right to maintain, protect and have access to their
religious and cultural sites; right to use and control of
ceremonial objects; right to repatriation of human
remains)1
1Section 33, IPRA.

The State shall take effective measures, in cooperation with

the ICCs/IPs concerned, to ensure that indigenous sacred places,
including burial sites, be preserved, respected and protected.2

2 Id.
 (6) Right to receive from the national government
all funds especially earmarked or allocated
for the management and preservation
of their archeological and historical sites
and artifacts with the financial and technical
support of the national government agencies.1
1Section 37, IPRA.
Rights to Ancestral Domains/Lands
What are considered Ancestral Domains?
Ancestral domains
- refer to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs
comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas,
and natural resources therein held
under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed
by ICCs/IPs, by themselves
or through their ancestors,
communally or individually
since time immemorial,
continuously to the present
except when interrupted by war, force majeure
or displacement by force, deceit, stealth
or as a consequence of government projects
 or any other voluntary dealings entered into
by the government and private individuals/
corporations, and which are necessary
to ensure their economic, social
and cultural welfare.
It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture,
residential, agricultural and other lands
individually owned
whether alienable and disposable or otherwise,
hunting grounds, burial grounds, worships areas,
bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources,
and lands which may no longer be
exclusively occupied by ICC/IPs
but from which they traditionally had access to
for their subsistence and traditional activities,
particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs
who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators.1
1Section 3 (a), IPRA.
 What are Ancestral Lands?
Ancestral lands
- refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized
by individuals, families and clans
who are members of the ICCs/IPs
since time immemorial, by themselves
or through their predecessors-in-interest,
under claims of individual or traditional
group ownership, continuously, to the present
except when interrupted by war, force majeure
or displacement by force, deceit, stealth,
or as a consequence of government projects
and other voluntary dealings entered into
by government and private individuals/
corporations, including, but not limited to,
residential lots, rice terraces or paddies,
private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.1
1Section 3 (b), IPRA.
 However, property rights
within the ancestral domain
already existing and/or vested
upon the effectivity of IPRA 1

shall be respected.2

1November 22, 1997

2Section 56, IPRA
Specific Rights to Ancestral Domains/Lands

(1) right of ownership

(the right to claim ownership over lands,
bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied
by ICC/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting
and fishing grounds, and all improvements
made by them at any time within the domains)1
1Section 7 (a), IPRA.
(2) Right to develop lands and natural resources
within their ancestral domains1 including
priority rights in the harvesting, extraction,
development or exploitation of natural resources
within ancestral domains2 and responsibility
to manage ancestral domains or portions thereof
which are found to be necessary for critical
watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries,
wilderness, protected area, forest cover, or
reforestation as determined by appropriate
agencies.3
1Section 7 (b), IPRA.
2Section 57, IPRA.

3Section 58, IPRA.

 In this connection, all departments and other governmental agencies
have henceforth been strictly enjoined by law from issuing, renewing, or
granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into
any production-sharing agreement without prior certification
from the NCIP (Certification Precondition) that the area affected
does not overlap with any ancestral domain or is not covered
by any pending petition for the issuance of a Certificate Ancestral Domain
Title (CADT) which shall be issued only after a field-based investigation
(FBI) by the Ancestral Domain Office (ADO) of the area concerned.1
A government agency may thereafter proceed with the usual process
for the issuance of concession, license or lease upon the issuance
by the NCIP of a Certification Precondition that the area affected
neither overlaps with any ancestral domain nor is covered
by any pending petition for the issuance of a CADT. Otherwise,
the NCIP would issue the Certification Precondition
only after the community/communities concerned has/have granted its/their
free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) which shall be in writing. 2
1Section 59, IPRA.
2Id.
 In substance, the FPIC process is nothing more
than an honest-to-goodness presentation
of the program/project/activity to the community
by the proponents and the granting of allowance
to the community to convene and decide for themselves
the merits of the program/project/activity in accordance with
their customary law.1

1Sections 19, et seq., NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2012.

C In case of consent by the community,
the community shall issue its FPIC
after a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
shall have been executed and signed.2

D In case of non-consent, the same shall

be reduced into a Resolution of Non-Consent,1
to which the proponent/applicant may request
for reconsideration.3
1Id., Sections 31 to 35.
2Id., Section 22, ninth paragraph.

3Id., Section 27.

 The FBI and FPIC requirements are now standard processes
in the issuance of licenses/permits for a wide array of activities in upland
areas, especially those classified as Extractive/Intrusive/Large Scale
Activities to wit:
[a] Exploration, development, exploitation, utilization of land, energy,
mineral, forest, water, marine, air, and other natural resources requiring
permits, licenses, lease, contracts, concession, or agreements, e.g.,
production-sharing agreement, from the appropriate national or local
government agencies, including feasibility studies related thereto,
[b] Those that may lead to the displacement and/or relocation of ICCs/IPs;
[c] Resettlement programs or projects by the government or any of its
instrumentalities that may introduce migrants;
[d] Declaration and management of protected and environmentally critical
areas, and other related undertakings;
[e] Bio-prospecting and related activities;
[f] Activities that would affect their spiritual and religious traditions,
customs and ceremonies, including ceremonial objects, archeological
exploration, diggings and excavations and access to religious and cultural
sites;
[g] Industrial land use including the establishment of economic zones;
 [h] Large scale agricultural and forestry management projects;
[i] Carbon trading and related activities;
[j] Large scale tourism projects;
[k] Establishment of temporary or permanent military facilities,
conduct of military exercises, or organizing para-military forces;
[l] Issuance of land tenure instrument or resource use instrument
by any government agency and related activities;
and
[m] Others analogous to the foregoing, except small-scale quarrying.1
1Section 19, NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2012.
 Also subject to FBI and FPIC, although for a less stricter procedure,
are the following activities classified as Non-Extractive/Small Scale
Activities, to wit:

[1] Activities not classified as Extractive/Intrusive/Large Scale;

[2] Feasiblitiy studies on activities not considered
Extractive/Intrusive/Large Scale;
[3] Non-extractive exploitation and utilization of land, water
and natural resources as defined under existing laws, rules and regulations
of governing or regulating agencies, e.g., ISF, CBFM, IFMA, etc.;
[4] Programs/projects/activities not requiring permits from government
agencies;
[5] Other Small scale quarrying;
and
[6] Such other analogous to the foregoing. 1

1Id., Section 24.

 The seemingly complicated and stringent
requirements were put in place by law
not as an additional layer of bureaucracy
but because there is no other reliable way
of ensuring that ICCs/IPs are not left out
of the benefits, or made to bear the adverse effects,
or both, of development. In the past,
reliance on bare avowals of protection for ICCs/IPs
have not sufficed because ICCs/IPs have in fact
been displaced or disrupted even by
programs/projects/activities of the government.
(3) Right to stay in their territories and not to be
removed therefrom1
1Section 7 (c), IPRA.

(4) Right in case of displacement

(right to security of tenure in places
where they have relocated)2
2Section 7 (d), IPRA.

(5) Right to regulate the entry of migrants into

their ancestral domains3
3Section 7 (e), IPRA.
(6) Right to safe and clean air and water1
1Section 7 (f), IPRA.

(7) Right to claim parts of their ancestral

domains which have been reserved for various
government purposes2
2Section 7 (g), IPRA.

(8) Right to resolve land disputes

within their domains in accordance with their
customary laws3
3Section 7 (h), IPRA.
Self-Governance and Empowerment
(1) Right to self-governance1
1Section 13, IPRA.

(2) Right to use their own commonly-accepted

justice systems, conflict resolutions,
peace-building processes or mechanisms
and other customary laws and practices within their
respective communities2
1Section 15, IPRA.
(3) Right to participate fully, if they so choose,
at all levels of decision-making in matters which may
affect their rights, lives
and destinies and mandatory representation
in policy-making bodies
and other local legislative councils1
1Section 16, IPRA.

(4) Right to participate in the formulation, implementation

and evaluation of policies, plan and programs for
national, regional and local development which may
directly affect them2
2Section 17, IPRA.
(5) Where they live in contiguous areas
or communities and form the predominant
population but which are located
in municipalities, provinces or cities
where they do not constitute the majority
population, to form tribal barangays in
accordance with the Local Government Code2
2Section 18, IPRA.
Social Justice and Human Rights
(1) Right to equal protection
and equal opportunity
and against all forms of discrimination
against ICCs/IPs1
1Sections 21, 23 and 24, IPRA.

(2) Rights during armed conflict

(compliance with international standards for special protection
of civilian populations in periods of emergency
and armed conflict,2
particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949)
1Section 22, IPRA.
(3) Right to basic services1
1Section 25, IPRA.

(4) Rights of ICC/IP women

(equal rights and opportunities
for both women and men)2
2Section 26, IPRA.

(5) Rights of children and youth3

3Sections 27 and 28, IPRA.
 You ask if we own the
land. You mock us. Where is your
title? Where are the documents to
prove that you own the land? Title.
Documents. Proof. Such arrogance
of owning land when you are
owned by it. How can you own that
which outlives you? Only the
people own the land because only
the people live forever. To claim a
place is the birthright of everyone.
The lowly animals claim their
place, how much more of human
beings. They are born to live.
- Kalinga Pangat (Elder) Macliing
Dulags (1930-1980) immortal response to
Marcos henchmen who mocked their
opposition to the Chico River Dam Project
for his tribes lack of title to their ancestral
domain
 Macliing Dulag was a respected elder who successfully led his
community and the Cordillera ethnic people in opposing a dam project
of the Marcos regime that would have inundated ricefields, homes,
communal forests and sacred burial grounds.

Macliing was a little-known village pangat serving his

mountainside village of Bugnay in the 1960s. Pangats are village elders
in Kalinga, chosen by the community to lead because of the courage
and wisdom they had shown in the past.

Macliing was a rice farmer, and also had a weekday job as road
maintenance worker for the Bureau of Public Highways.

In 1974, the newly-installed Marcos dictatorship sought to

implement a 1,000-megawatt hydroelectric power project along Chico
River. The project involved the construction of four dams that would
have inundated 1,400 sq. kms. of Kalinga homes, rice terraces,
orchards, and graveyards. The lives of as many as 100,000 living in
villages along the river, including Macliings Bugnay, would have been
affected by the project.
 The ethnic Kalinga and Bontoc communities, and
lowlanders who sympathized with their cause, argued that
national development should never be achieved at such
extreme sacrifice.
Resistance to the dam project helped unify what was
once a divided Cordillera region. Macliing and other
Cordillera leaders initiated a series of tribal pacts, which
helped cement this unity and create a very broad anti-dam
front. Macliing became the recognized spokesperson for
the anti-dam opposition, for although virtually
unschooled, Macliing saw life sharply:
If you (government) in your search for the good life
destroy life, we question it. We say those who need
electric lights are not thinking of us who are bound to be
destroyed. Or will the need for electric power be a reason
for our death?
 Macliing became a strong and articulate leader in this struggle,
which pitted small nearly powerless communities in the Cordilleras
against the full powers of the martial law regime. Kalinga and Bontoc
leaders were offered bribes, harassed, even imprisoned by the martial
law regime but they, including Macliing, stayed firm in their
opposition.

Macliing was assassinated on April 24, 1980. A group of

government soldiers raided his house and killed him with a rain of
bullets. His assassination, however, solidified the opposition to the
dam, which had won sympathizers from all over the country and even
outside the country. His assassins were eventually convicted.

Even the World Bank, which would have funded the dam
construction, withdrew from the project, forcing the government to
back out of it at last.
 Thank You, very much!
Maraming Salamat, po!
Madamu guid nga Salamat!
Daghang Salamat gyud!