By Dennis Gorecho
Despite the enactment of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) or Republic Act No. 8371 27 years ago, conflicting laws and policies have made the implementation of this law quite challenging.
This was the pronouncement of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), through its Episcopal Commission on Indigenous Peoples (ECIP), on the 47th Indigenous People’s Sunday on October 13, 2024 with the theme “Lakbay-Laya: Pilgrims of Hope in Ancestral Domain.”
“The celebration of IP Sunday aims to highlight the current situations of indigenous peoples, garner support from our non-indigenous brothers and sisters, and provide necessary assistance to alleviate the challenges faced by approximately 15 million indigenous people throughout the country,” says Ifugao and Mountain Province Bishop Valentin C. Dimoc, D.D., ECIP chairperson in his letter of appeal.
Bishop Dimoc stressed that “it is crucial to place greater emphasis on our indigenous sisters and brothers, who have long been excluded from many decisions.”
In their July 1978 assembly, the CBCP designated every second Sunday of October as IP Sunday wherein priests are expected to give homilies and commentaries on the plight of IPs as well as encourage Christian lowlanders to express their solidarity with the IPs’ struggle for self-determination.
The IPRA was signed into law by President Fidel Ramos on October 29, 1997 to support the cultural integrity of IPs, the right to their lands and the right to self-directed development of these lands.
Former Senator Juan Flavier, one of IPRA’s authors, noted that the “IPs are the offspring and heirs of the peoples who have first inhabited and cared for the land long before any central government was established.”
The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) said in a paper that much of the legal controversy emanates from overlapping and unclarified jurisdiction of various departments of the government, particularly in the processing and awarding of tenurial instruments.
Despite the aspirations of IPRA, the LRC noted that it may not be interpreted to mean limiting the jurisdiction of Courts nor does it imply that National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) has primary and sole jurisdiction over all Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs)/IPs claims and disputes to the exclusion of the regular courts. This also applies to the few criminal cases.
The Supreme Court issued on August 15, 2023 a Writ of Kalikasan against Ipilan Nickel Corp., and Celestial Nickel Mining and Exploration Corp. and in favor of the ICCs of Brooke’s Point, Palawan.
It found that the continued mining operations and excavation of nickel may cause irreparable environmental damage to the Mt. Mantalingahan protected area and the ICCs’ ancestral domain as exhibited by extreme flooding and contamination of fishing areas.
“The indigenous peoples’ struggle for their rights has long been enduring. Their struggle for the recognition of their rights to land and self-determination is rooted in their effort for cultural and human survival. We should honor the struggle of our people,” according to my UP Law professor and now Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonon in the case of Sama vs People (G.R. No. 224469, January 5, 2021).
Leonen underscored that IPRA recognizes that IPs have a claim of ownership, not only upon the ancestral domain but also on the resources found in them. It acknowledges that the ancestral domain and the resources located therein constitute the IPs’ basis for their cultural integrity.
Justice Leonen stressed in Ha Datu Tawahig vs. Lapinid (G.R. No. 221139, March 20, 2019) that the IPRA was adopted precisely recognizing that indigenous peoples have been “resistant to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures, and became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos.”
In Daco vs. Cabajar (G.R. No. 222611, November 15, 2021), Justice Leonen said that IPRA grants the ICCs the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these lands and domains. The ownership given is the indigenous concept of ownership under customary law which traces its origin to native title.
“Tumandok” is the biggest winner for this year’s Cinemalaya Independent Film Festival that centered on the struggle of the Ati indigenous people to reclaim their ancestral domain in Iloilo.
It won Best Film “for its focus on a marginalized sector of Philippine society; for its nearly epic sweep of the life and landscape of a people disempowered by the wealthy and the powerful and victimized by government neglect and corruption; for its highly convincing characters and effective ensemble acting by a cast of non-professional actors; and for its highly effective filmmaking in defense of the rights of indigenous people to their ancestral domain.”
***
“Peyups” is the moniker of the University of the Philippines.
***
Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho heads the Seafarers’ Division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09175025808 or 09088665786./WDJ