The Contest for Control - Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples ...

National Commission on 

Indigenous Peoples of Philippines: 

THE CONTEST FOR CONTROL 

ASIAN INDIGEOUS & TRIBAL PEOPLES NETWORK

National Commission on Indigenous 

Peoples of Philippines: 

The Contest for Control

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of Philippines: 

The Contest for Control 

© Asian Indigenous & Tribal Peoples Network, August 2008 

All rights reserved. 

ISBN : 978-81-902318-5-5 

Price : Rs. 590/- 

Cover Photo : Lumad Street Dancers, Courtesy http://www.mindanao.com/photoblog/wp-content/ 

uploads/2008/03/lumads-3.JPG 

Asian Indigenous & Tribal Peoples Network 

P.O. Box 9627, Janakpuri, 

New Delhi-110058, India 

Tel/fax: +91-11-25503624 

Email: aitpn@aitpn.org 

Website: www.aitpn.org 

Acknowledgement 

This report is being published with the financial assistance from the European Commission under 

the project, "Realization of Indigenous Peoples Rights at National Level in Asia", granted to Asian 

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network under the European Initiative for Human Rights and Democracy 

– the European Union's programme that aims to promote and support human rights and democracy 

worldwide.

CONTENTS 

1. Executive Summary and Recommendations:..................................................................................... 1 

2. Who are the indigenous peoples of the Philippines.......................................................................... 10 

A. Indigenous populations................................................................................................................ 11 

B. The ethno-linguistic Group Profiles............................................................................................. 11 

3. Political autonomy/self-determination.............................................................................................. 13 

4. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, 1997................................................................................................. 14 

5. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples: An Analysis............................................................. 15 

A. Overview...................................................................................................................................... 15 

B. Composition and selection Procedure.......................................................................................... 15 

C. Broad mandate............................................................................................................................. 17 

D. Credibility of the Commission..................................................................................................... 19 

E. Financial independence................................................................................................................ 19 

F. Accessibility and transparency.................................................................................................... 21 

6. NCIP and implementation of Ipra................................................................................................... 22 

I. Right to Ancestral Domains......................................................................................................... 22 

A. Delay in processing of Cadts and Calts................................................................................. 23 

Lack of funds............................................................................................................................... 24 

Overlapping land uses and development programmes and projects............................................ 25 

Tedious and expensive ground survey......................................................................................... 25 

B. Contradictions in the Ipra on indigenous peoples rights to Ancestral Domain 

Vis-à-Vis authority of the State.................................................................................................... 25 

Case 1: Aeta Ancestral Domains.................................................................................................. 26 

Case 2: Mangyan’s loss of their ancestral domains covered within the 

reservation of Mindoro College of Agriculture and Technology................................................. 26 

C. Mining Act, 1995-An obstacle to enjoyment of the right to ancestral 

domain and natural resources by indigenous peoples.................................................................. 26 

II. Right to self-governance and empowerment............................................................................... 28 

A. Violations of the requirement of free and prior informed consent.............................................. 28 

B. Legal aid assistance..................................................................................................................... 30 

C. Human Rights - Not a Ncip agenda............................................................................................ 31 

III. Right to socio-economic services................................................................................................ 32 

A. Socio-economic development...................................................................................................... 33 

B. Right to health, education and culture......................................................................................... 34 

Health........................................................................................................................................... 34 

Right to education and culture..................................................................................................... 35 

7. Proceedings of the National Seminar Titled National Institutions 

on Indigenous Peoples: The Experience of the Philippines............................................................. 37 

Annexure I: Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, 1997............................................................................... 45 

Annexure II President's Executive Order No 726 of 23 May 2008 transferring NCIP to DENR........ 66

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of Philippines: The Contest for Control 

1. Executive Summary and Recommendations 

At the National Seminar on “National Institutions 

on Indigenous Peoples: The Experience of the 

Philippines” organised by Asian Indigenous and 

Tribal Peoples Network (AITPN) in Manila on 

29-30 March 2008, participants discussed the 

obstacles faced by the National Commission on 

Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) – the implementing 

agency of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act 

(IPRA) of 1997. Among the obstacles, the 

Department of Agrarian Reform under which 

NCIP was placed under as per the Executive 

Order No. 364 on 27 September 2004 was 

identified as the prime one. 

On 23 May 2008, President Gloria M. Arroyo 

issued Executive Order No. 726 to put NCIP 

under the Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources (DENR). Transferring 

from one government department to another is 

unlikely to improve functioning of the NCIP. 

In this context, the statement of Ms. Myrna L. 

Caoagas, Director, Ancestral Domains Office of 

NCIP at the National Seminar about the problems 

faced by NCIP while approving survey plans for 

Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) 

is instructive: 

“NCIP faced problems for approving 

survey plans. Other agencies including 

the Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources (DENR) questioned 

the authority to approve the surveys. 

Therefore, NCIP had to hold several 

meetings to sort out the differences because 

according to the DENR, it is the only 

competent authority to approve surveys. 

Again when the NCIP registered the 

CADTs, the Land Registration Authority 

(LRA under the Department of Agrarian 

Reform) created problems saying as to 

how NCIP can register ancestral lands 

and ancestral waters. They cited the lack 

of appropriate reference book saying 

that in the Presidential Decree there is 

no reference to the Ancestral Domain 

and Ancestral Land. So, the LRA people 

would ask what book we are going to refer 

for registration of Ancestral domains and 

Ancestral waters. And again, we had to 

sit down with them to solve the problems 

through memoranda and agreements.” 

The transfer of NCIP from DAR to DENR goes 

beyond administrative reshuffle. The DENR 

also control the Mines and Geosciences Bureau 

(MGB) the primary agency for licensing and 

regulation of mining in the Philippines. The 

Mining Act of 1995 is in direct contradiction 

of IPRA of 1997. The MGB had announced 

that about 12.2 million hectares are available 

for medium to large-scale mining companies 

which had already applied for mining rights. 

The MGB had laid out plans to make way for 

24 priority mining projects meant to raise a total 

investment of over $8 billion in 2013 covering 

at least 40.65 percent of the country’s total land 

area. Out of the 24 identified priority projects 

of the government for large-scale mining, 18 

come from indigenous territories. With the 

latest Executive Order, President Arroyo has 

made her priorities clear: undertake mining 

activities, undermine IPRA and bring NCIP 

under the administrative control of the mining 

authorities. 

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 

1997 is the first law in Asia which recognised 

“indigenous peoples” – a taboo amongst 

the Asian governments, and their rights to 

ancestral domains/ancestral lands, right to selfgovernance 

and empowerment, social justice 

AITPN 

1


and human rights and cultural integrity of the 

indigenous peoples in the Philippines. The IPRA 

further provided for the establishment of the 

National Commission for Indigenous Peoples 

as its implementing agency. 

The NCIP is rolled into quasi-legislative, 

quasi-judicial and administrative/executive 

body. Its tasks include from development of 

Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development 

and Protection Plans - the task of a development 

agency to quasi-judicial powers – NCIP’s 

decisions can only be challenged before the 

Supreme Court of the Philippines. 

Since its inception, the NCIP faced many 

challenges. The constitutional validity of IPRA 

was questioned and little substantive work could 

be done until the Supreme Court upheld its 

constitutional validity in December 2000. Until 

2002, NCIP has failed to carry out its activities 

the process of titling the Ancestral Domains as 

no funds were allocated. 

Obviously, the NCIP has failed to meet the 

expectations of the indigenous peoples. It 

is all set to fail further as its independence 

and impartiality will further be eroded by the 

DENR. 

Based on the research and the National 

Consultation, AITPN discusses the critical issues 

and makes appropriate recommendations. 

I. Establish a Ministry for Indigenous 

Peoples to facilitate the work of NCIP 

The role of the NCIP with commendable 

juridical powers should be the one of monitoring 

and enforcement of the rights of indigenous 

peoples as provided under the IPRA. However, 

NCIP has increasingly been reduced to a 

development agency including making of the 


and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs). In AITPN’s 

view, the role of the NCIP should be developing 

guidelines for Ancestral Domain Sustainable 

Development and Protection Plans and ensure 

compliance with these guidelines by the 

implementing agencies. The NCIP should not 

be the implementing agency as it stresses its 

capacity and expertise and erodes its monitoring 

and compliance responsibilities. 

AITPN firmly believes putting the NCIP 

previously under the Department of Agrarian 

Reform via the Executive Order No. 364 on 

27 September 2004 and currently under the 

Department of Environment under Executive 

Order No. 726 defeats the IPRA and is 

implementing agency NCIP. 

Recommendations: 

The government of Philippines should establish 

a Ministry on Indigenous Peoples as the nodal 

Ministry for overall policy, planning and 

coordination of programmes for development 

of indigenous people and that the activities 

of the Ministry shall be carried out under the 

supervision and monitoring of the National 

Commission for Indigenous Peoples. 

II. Need for a census of indigenous 

populations: 

There is no reliable census on the population of 

indigenous peoples. In its 2001 Annual Report, 

the National Commission on Indigenous 

Peoples stated that the total population of 

the indigenous peoples in 2000 was around 

12,887,291 constituting 17 per cent of the 

national population. However, the NCIP in its 

Budget Folio for the year 2008 stated that the 

total population of the indigenous peoples is 

11,778,190. Obviously, there are no correct 

figures on the populations of indigenous 

peoples. The data is indispensable to make 

plans, programmes and policies or the proper 

implementation of the Indigenous Peoples 

Rights Act 1997. 


- The NCIP should take initiative to conduct 

a census of indigenous peoples and urge the 

government of Philippines to make budgetary 

allocations proportionate to the indigenous 

populations in the country. 

2 AITPN


III. Appointment/Removal Procedures: 

Appointment of members: 

The appointment procedures as laid down 

in the Implementing Rules and Regulations 

(IRR) of the IPRA for the appointment of the 

seven Commissioners of the NCIP are vague 

and provide for discretion by the President 

of the Republic of Philippines. The IRR 

does not clarify as to what procedure(s) the 

President will adopt or abide by if more than 

one name is recommended for appointment as 

Commissioner from a particular ethnographic 

region. A particular ethnographic region may 

have different indigenous communities and 

indigenous peoples’ organisations or groups and 

they may recommend more than one candidate. 

In the event of multiple recommendations/ 

nominations for the post of the Commissioner 

from a single region, there is simply no provision 

as how the Commissioner from that region will 

be appointed. 

Appointment of Chairperson: 

There is no procedure for appointment of 

the Chairperson of the NCIP. Both the IPRA 

(Section 40) and IRR (Part III, Section 2) 

only provide that the NCIP shall be composed 

of seven Commissioners “one of whom shall 

be the Chairperson”. The IRR is silent on the 

procedure for appointment of the Chairperson 

by the President which leaves a lot of room for 

politicization of the issue. 

Removal of members without investigation: 

Section 7 of the IRR provides that “Any 

member of the NCIP may be removed from 

office for cause, after due notice and hearing, 

by the President on his own initiative or upon 

recommendation by any ICC/IP community 

before the expiration of his term and after 

complying with the due process requirement of 

law.” 

Section 8 of the IRR (Part III) provides the 

reasons on the basis of which a Commissioner 

may be removed – “The removal for cause of 

any Commissioner shall require the following: 

AITPN 

a) A formal petition or complaint shall be filed 

by any indigenous community to the Office of 

the President in Manila or any of its regional 

field offices; and b) The petition or complaint 

shall include, but not be limited to, a narration 

of facts and circumstances describing the crime, 

illegal act/s, or other act/s contrary to customary 

law which subject the indigenous community to 

unnecessary risks that threaten their territorial 

and cultural integrity, which were committed by 

the Commissioner/s. The petitioners shall attach 

the necessary documents supporting the petition 

or complaint.” 

Due process is not guaranteed for the removal 

of the Commissioners under Section 7 of the 

IRR. The IRR does not lay down any provision 

for requirement of an impartial investigation 

into the allegations as may be contained in 

the petition or complaint from the indigenous 

community. 

The President can initiate “removal” 

procedures against any Commissioner on his 

(President’s) own initiative without ascertaining 

the allegations. This severely impacts the 

independence and functioning of the National 

Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 


The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) 

of the IPRA should be amended bearing in 

mind that its decision can be challenged before 

the Supreme Court. AITPN recommends the 

following: 

“Procedure of appointment of Chairperson 

and Commissioners 

(1) The Chairperson and Commissioners 

shall be appointed by the President of the 

Philippines on the recommendation of the 

“Recommendation Committee” consisting of 

the following members: 

(a) Speaker of the Congress 

(b) Speaker of the Senate 

(c) Leaders of the Opposition in the Congress 

and the Senate 

3


(d) Three representatives of National 

Consultative Assembly of Indigenous 

Peoples (to be facilitated by NCIP). 

The Recommendation Committee members shall 

appoint a Chairperson among themselves and 

two-third members shall form the quorum. 

(2) The procedures of receiving the nomination 

by the Recommendation Committee shall be as 

under: 

(a) The Executive Director of the National 

Commission for Indigenous Peoples 

shall serve as the Secretary of the 

Recommendation Committee and issue a 

notification inviting nominations to fill up 

the vacant posts of Chairperson and other 

Commissioners, 

(b) Such notification for nomination shall 

be pasted on the notice board of the 

Commission, notified through publication 

in all national newspapers of Philippines 

and other communication systems like 

internet; 

(c) The period of filing nomination shall be 

at least one month from the date of the 

notification; 

(d) After the expiry of the date of filing 

nominations, the Executive Director shall 

issue a public notice inviting comments 

from the indigenous peoples (individuals 

and organizations) on candidature of all the 

nominees and the details of the nominees 

including names, address, educational 

qualifications, work experience etc. before 

placing the nominations for consideration 

of the Recommendation Committee and the 

information pertaining to all the nominees 

shall be made public; 

Procedure for filling up vacancies of 

Chairperson /Commissioners 

(1) In case of resignation or removal provided 

under the Rules, the procedure for filling up the 

vacancy must be completed within three months 

after resignation or removal of the Chairperson 

or any Commissioner; 

(2) In case of retirement or completion of the 

terms of office of the Chairperson /any other 

Commissioners, the procedure for filling up the 

vacancy be completed prior to the retirement 

or completion of the term of the concerned 

Chairperson / Commissioners; 

Resignation and removal of the Chairperson 

or other Commissioners 

(1) The Chairperson or any Commissioner may, 

by notice in writing under his/her hand addressed 

to the President, resign his/her office. 

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), 

the Chairperson or any other Commissioners 

shall only be removed from his/her office by the 

initiative of the Recommendation Committee or 

upon complaints by any indigenous community 

on the ground of proven misbehaviour or 

incapacity after the Supreme Court, on reference 

being made to it by the Recommendation 

Committee, has, on inquiry held in accordance 

with the procedure prescribed in that behalf 

by the Supreme Court, reported that the 

Chairperson or such other Commissioner, as 

the case may be, ought on any such ground to 

be removed. 

(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), 

the President of the Republic of Philippines on 

the advice of the Recommendation Committee 

may by order remove from office the Chairperson 

or any other Commissioner if the Chairperson 

or such other Commissioners, as the case may 

be; 

(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or 

(b) engages during his/her term of office in 

any paid employment outside the duties of 

his/her office; or 

(c) is unfit to continue in office by reason of 

infirmity of mind or body; or 

(d) is of unsound mind and stands so declared 

by a competent court; or 

4 AITPN


(e) is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment 

for an offence that involves moral 

turpitude.” 

IV. Ensuring participation of 

indigenous peoples 

The NCIP failed to institutionalise the National 

Consultative Assembly of Indigenous Peoples 

organized during the visit of the UN Special 

Rapporteur on human rights and fundamental 

freedom of indigenous peoples in 2002. Many 

individuals who were neither native of the 

communities nor members of any indigenous 

peoples organizations were appointed as 

members of Provincial Coordinating Bodies 

(PCBs) in many provinces. It severely 

undermined the credibility of the National 

Consultative Assembly. 


Recognising the indispensability of the 

participation of indigenous peoples, NCIP 

should facilitate the creation of “National 

Consultative Assembly of Indigenous Peoples” 

represented only by indigenous community 

leaders to ensure participation of indigenous 

peoples in decision-making; 

The terms of reference of the “National 

Consultative Assembly of Indigenous Peoples” 

should be prepared through wide and inclusive 

consultation with indigenous peoples; 

Recognise and organise the tribal barrangays 

(lowest administrative entity) as the starting point 

for ensuring participation of indigenous peoples 

in governance and decision making; and Make 

necessary changes in the Implementing Rules 

and Regulations to provide for inclusion of the 

tribal barrangays and “National Consultative 

Assembly of Indigenous Peoples”. 

V. Inadequate financial resources: 

NCIP suffers from acute shortage of financial 

resources. The budget does not commensurate 

with the number of offices provided under the 

IPRA: a) Ancestral Domains office; b) Office 

on Policy, Planning and Research; c) Office 

AITPN 

of Education, Culture and Health; d) Office on 

socio-Economic Services and Special Concern; 

e) Office of empowerment and Human Rights; 

f) Administrative Office and g) Legal Affairs 

Office in addition to the NCIP being given 

power to create additional offices as it may 

deem necessary subject to existing rules and 

regulations under Section 47. 

According to NCIP's Annual Reports of 2005 

and 2006, its budgetary allocations were 

respectively Pesos 469,996,601 and Pesos 

405,438,000 respectively for the FY 2005 and FY 

2006. These are highly inadequate considering 

that indigenous peoples constitute about 17% of 

the total population of the Philippines. 


The government of Philippines should 

make 17% of the budgetary allocations for 

indigenous peoples and that all the Ministries 

and Departments should be required to allocate 

17% of the budgetary allocations for indigenous 

peoples proportionate to their populations and 

these funds should be made non-divertible and 

non-lapsable; and 

The NCIP should prepare a budget for its works 

and present it to the government of Philippines 

as well as the international community. 

VI. Right to Ancestral Domains and 

Ancestral Lands 

A. Delay in processing of CADT and CALT 

The performance of the NCIP for titling of 

lands under Certificates of Ancestral Domain 

Titles (CADTs) and Certificates of Ancestral 

Land Titles (CALTs) has not been satisfactory. 

The delay for titling (identification, delineation 

and recognition of ancestral domain and land 

claims) has become one of the obstacles for 

realization of the rights of indigenous peoples 

as provided under IPRA. 

In its Budget Briefing for 2008, NCIP stated that 

the total estimated area of Ancestral Domain 

5


(AD) was 6,323,195 hectares while the total 

number of applications for Ancestral Domains 

received were 540 covering 5,201,899.9390 

hectares. So far, the NCIP issued Certificate 

of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) for 181 

applications covering 2,546,033 hectares 

while the total number Certificate of Ancestral 

Land Claims (CALC) areas numbering 147 is 

10,095.8882 hectares. 

The NCIP officials cited lack of adequate funds 

as the major constraints for being not able to 

expedite the process of titling of CADTs and 

CALTs at the desired pace. NCIP's annual budget 

for the Ancestral Domain Office is merely Pesos 

31 million. 


The NCIP should immediately notify the 

total estimated area of Ancestral Domain of 

6,323,195 hectares for which applications have 

been submitted as provided in its Budget Briefing 

for 2008 “as deemed Ancestral Domains” and 

ensure application of IRPA including the Right 

to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), 

subject to issuance of final titles. 

NCIP should undertake programmes for 

strengthening institutional capacity building 

of indigenous peoples by including social 

preparation for processing CADT application; 

NCIP should prepare a budget for CADT and 

create a section within NCIP specifically for 

fund raising from international community 

and directly helping a focused constituency 

building; and 

NCIP should conduct a survey of the entire 

ancestral domains. 

B. Land rights prior to the enactment of 

IPRA: 

The regalian doctrine provides for state 

ownership of all lands and natural resources 

which have not been owned individually from 

the State either through sale or grant. In addition 

to this doctrine, Section 56 of IPRA provides 

that property rights within the ancestral domains 

already existing and/or vested upon affectivity 

of this Act shall be recognized and respected. 

This section legitimises the seizure of ancestral 

territory prior to the enactment of the IPRA. 

There are glaring examples of continuing 

deprivation of indigenous communities of their 



The NCIP should issue a notification to all the 

departments and ministries to ensure that any 

claim under Section 56 of IPRA must be subject 

to approval by the NCIP. 

VII. The issue of Free and Prior 

Informed Consent 

Section 59 of the IPRA categorically prohibits 

all departments and governmental agencies 

from issuing, renewing, or granting any 

concession, license or lease, or entering into 

any production-sharing agreement, without 

prior certification from the NCIP that the area 

affected does not overlap with any ancestral 

domain. The section clearly provided that no 

certification shall be issued by the NCIP without 

the free and prior informed and written consent 

of ICCs/IPs concerned. It also provided that no 

department, government agency or governmentowned 

or controlled corporation may issue new 

concession, license, lease, or production sharing 

agreement while there is a pending application 

for a CADT and that the ICCs/IPs shall have the 

right to stop or suspend any project that has not 

satisfied the requirement of this free and prior 

informed consent. 

Sections 3 to 9 of the Implementing Rules and 

Regulations (IRR) of the IPRA provide the 

procedures for obtaining FPIC and obligations 

of the proponent etc. 

However, an assessment of effectiveness of 

these provisions as tools against violations 

of the rights of ancestral domains of the 

indigenous peoples shows otherwise. As of 16 

6 AITPN


May 2007, the NCIP has issued 671 Certificates 

of Precondition under section 59 of IPRA 

on applications without ancestral domain 

overlap and 67 Certificates Precondition with 

Free and Prior Informed Consent by indigenous 

peoples. 

In 2003, the NCIP issued its first guidelines 

on the process of obtaining free, prior and 

informed consent. Reportedly under pressure 

from the Federal Government in view of the 

government’s determination to increase mining 

activities, the NCIP revised its 2003 FPIC 

Guidelines in 2006 vide its Administrative Order 

No. 01, Series of 2006 titled The Free and Prior 

Informed Consent (FPIC) Guidelines of 2006. 

The revised guidelines made the process easier 

for companies, especially mining companies to 

enter into ancestral domains. The new guidelines 

shortened the period for completion of the 

FPIC process from 180 days to 90 days and the 

requirement of consensus within the affected 

communities has been reduced to consultations 

within the Council of Elders. The revised 

guidelines also limited the FPIC process only 

to the officially recognized indigenous lands 

(indigenous territories included on the NCIP’s 

primary list). 

The passage of Republic Act 7942, or the Mining 

Act of 1995, re-enforced further marginalisation 

of indigenous peoples. In its judgement while 

upholding the constitutional validity of the Act 

in February 2005, the Supreme Court stated that 

the national government has the liberty to allow 

100 percent foreign control of mineral resources 

and contracted areas for their mining operations 

in the name of national development, including 

in the lands of indigenous peoples. 


The NCIP should revise its “Free and Prior 

Informed Consent Guidelines of 2006” 

and fully incorporate the conclusions and 

recommendations of the “International 

Workshop on Methodologies regarding Free, 

Prior and Informed Consent and Indigenous 

AITPN 

Peoples” organized by the United Nations 

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples 

(E/C.19/2005/3). 

VIII. Legal aid services and customary 

laws 

Legal aid service is one of the significant 

functions that the NCIP carries out under the 

component of right to self-governance and 

empowerment. The Legal Affairs Office of 

NCIP, according to official documents received 

by the AITPN, has intervened in 21 cases 

involving the issue of ancestral domains, land 

rights and rights over natural resources of the 

indigenous peoples during 2004-2008. Of these, 

only four cases have been decided while in the 

remaining cases, the orders of the NCIP have 

been challenged and are pending decision. 

NCIP also received 16 cases under its original 

jurisdiction during 2004-2008 and all these 

cases are pending determination. It also received 

5 cases of national significance concerns (NSC) 

during 2002-2007. 

In addition, there have been a few initiatives for 

recognition of the customary laws of indigenous 

peoples. 


NCIP should establish an institute of indigenous 

peoples’ customary laws and alternative conflict 

resolution in line with the proposal of Modified 

Jury System on Court of Customary Law. The 

terms of reference of such an institution, among 

others, should include facilities for training the 

jury from indigenous communities. 

IX. Put Human Rights on the Agenda 

of NCIP 

The NCIP’s role on addressing human 

rights violations of indigenous peoples has 

been unsatisfactory. It has failed to coordinate 

with the Human Rights Commission of 

Philippines. It has been reduced to a development 

agency. 

7



NCIP should focus on protection and promotion 

of human rights and set up human rights centers 

in all the seven ethnographic regions with 

indigenous peoples’ experts; and 

NCIP should coordinate with Commission for 

Human Rights of Philippines for addressing 

human rights violations of indigenous peoples. 

X. Socio-economic services: Stressing 

the need for separate Ministry for 

Indigenous Peoples 

In 2002, Dr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, UN Special 

Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 

also reported that the human development 

indicators for the indigenous peoples of 

Philippines are lower and poverty indicators 

are higher than those of the rest of society. The 

situation remains the same. 

Among others, the NCIP is mandated to establish 

(a) Office of Education, Culture and Health; 

and d) Office on Socio-Economic Services and 

Special Concern. 

NCIP has been implementing a range of 

activities on these issues as provided below. 

Socio-economic services: 

Under Section 5 of the Rules and Regulations 

implementing the IPRA provides that the 

indigenous cultural communities/indigenous 

peoples are entitled to basic services and that 

equitable delivery of basic services shall be the 

focus of the NCIP’s Five Year Master Plan. The 

performance of the NCIP in delivering socioeconomic 

services has been mixed. During the 

Fiscal Year 2005, the NCIP claimed to have 

implemented a total of 142 livelihood projects 

benefiting directly some 1,136 families from 

different indigenous community groups, 13 

agro-industrial technology transfer projects, 67 

small social infrastructure projects; conducted 

41 training sessions under entrepreneurial 

training program; and extended assistance 

to 33 cooperatives from 2 regions under the 

cooperative assistance program. 

According to its Annual Report of 2006, the 

NCIP has reportedly spent a total of Pesos 

6,576,410.00 during the financial year. Out of 

these, an amount of Pesos 4,851,450.00 was 

spent on implementation of livelihood and 

entrepreneurship program; an amount of Pesos 

1,078,100.00 was spent on delivery of social 

services; and an amount of pesos 646,860.00 

was spent on craft production. 

Health 

In its Annual Reports of 2005 and 2006, the NCIP 

has claimed to have continuing tie-up work and 

coordination with various stakeholders. In its 

Annual Report of 2005, NCIP itself asserted 

that basic health services in far-flung areas are 

seldom or never availed of by the indigenous 

communities. It cites the reasons either of lack 

of awareness about these basic health services 

of the government among the indigenous people 

or physical inaccessibility of the government 

health facilities to the indigenous peoples. 

Right to education and culture 

In its Annual Report of 2005, the NCIP 

claimed to have developed a culture sensitive 

Core Curriculum for Indigenous Peoples on 

Alternative Learning System in coordination 

with the Bureau of Alternative Learning System 

of the Department of Education in 2005. 

NCIP has been carrying out its Education 

Assistance Program. In its Annual Report of 

2005, the NCIP reported that a total of 9,728 

during the School Year 1999-2000, a total of 

10,717 during the School Year 2000-2001, a 

total of 10,034 during the School Year 2001- 

2002, a total of 10,356 during the School Year 

2002-2003, a total of 11,222 during the School 

Year 2003-2004 and a total of 9,135 indigenous 

students received grants under the Education 

Assistance Program. For School Year 2003- 

2004, an amount of Pesos 30 million was 

8 AITPN


released for this program. During the academic 

year 2005-2006, the NCIP spent Pesos 52.621 

million benefiting a total of 11,989 grantees. 

The development of a Core Framework for 

documentation of indigenous knowledge system 

and practices (IKSPs) is quite significant. 

The IKSPs are considered and expected to 

be vital in the nation-wide formulation of the 


and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs). 


As stated above, the government of Philippines 

should establish a Ministry on Indigenous 

Peoples as the nodal Ministry for overall policy, 

planning and coordination of programmes for 

development of indigenous people and that the 

activities of the Ministry shall be carried out 

under the supervision and monitoring of the 

National Commission for Indigenous Peoples. 

Further, all the Ministries / Departments should 

allocate 17% of their budgetary allocations 

for the indigenous peoples and the provincial 

governments to make similar allocations in 

proportion of indigenous peoples. These funds 

should have to be put in a separate budget head 

and should be non-divertible and non-lapsable. 

AITPN 

9


2. Who are the Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines? 

Section 3(h) of the Indigenous Peoples Rights 

Act of 1997 defines the indigenous peoples in 

the following way: 

“Indigenous Cultural Communities/ 

Indigenous Peoples - refer to a group of 

people or homogenous societies identified 

by self ascription and ascription by others, 

who have continuously lived as organized 

community bounded and defined territory, 

and who have, under claims of ownership 

since time immemorial occupied, possessed 

and utilised 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, became historically different 

from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/ 

IPs shall likewise include peoples who 

are regarded as indigenous on account 

of their 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 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 

ancestral domains”. 

The Philippines composed of 7,107 islands 

and islets spanning 1,854 kilometers with 

a land area of 299,764 sq. kilometers 

is home to various ethno-linguistic 

groups. 1 These indigenous peoples’ communities 

inhabit in the interiors of Luzon, Mindanao, and 

some islands of Visayas. Despite colonisation, 

they continued to live in their relatively isolated 

and self-sufficient lives and were able to preserve 

the culture and traditions of their “ethnos” or 

“tribe” as reflected in their views on land, their 

cooperative work exchanges, their rituals, their 

songs, dances, and folklore. 2 

The indigenous peoples of the Philippines are 

historically differentiated from the majority 

Filipinos through resistance to political, social, 

cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous 

religions and cultures. They are identified by 

self-ascription and ascription by others who have 

continuously lived as an organised community 

on communally bounded and defined territory. 

They have owned, possessed and utilised such 

territories under claims of ownership since 

time immemorial and share common bonds of 

language, customs, traditions and other distinct 

cultural traits. 3 Each group has a distinct culture 

and language. Each group lives in a specific 

region of the archipelago. 

The Philippines is among one of the few 

Asian countries that officially used the term 

‘indigenous peoples’ and recognized their rights. 

The 1987 Constitution of Philippines has several 

provisions of relevance to indigenous peoples, 

which it calls “indigenous cultural communities” 

(ICC) and promotes the rights of ICC “within the 

framework of national unity and development” 

(Art. II Sec. 22). Further in 1997, the government 

1. http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/general.asp 

2. The Philippine Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle, for Land and Life: Challenging Legal Texts, By Jose Mencio Molintas, available at: 

http://www.law.arizona.edu/Journals/AJICL/AJICL2004/Vol211/Molintas.pdf 

3. Our indigenous brothers, By Anabelle E. Plantilla, The Manila Times, 14 October 2006 

10 AITPN


of the Philippines adopted the Indigenous 

Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), 1997. The Act 

created the National Commission on Indigenous 

Peoples (NCIP) mandated to formulate and 

implement policies, plans and programs for the 

recognition, promotion and protection of the 

rights and well-being of Indigenous Cultural 

Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICC/IPs) 

with due regard to their beliefs, customs, 

traditions and institutions. 

A. Indigenous populations 

There is a controversy as to the exact population 

of indigenous peoples in the Philippines. The 

data on the indigenous peoples’ population 

in the country vary depending upon the 

organisation which conducted the research or 

survey. According to the Episcopal Commission 

on Tribal Filipinos (ECTF), there were 

approximately 40 ethno-linguistic groups with 

a population of about 6.5 to 7.5 million which 

was 10-11 per cent of the country’s population 

in 1995. While the National Council of the 

Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) estimated 

that there were some 60 such groups. 4 The 

Census of Population and Housing (CPH) of 

2000 conducted by the Philippines National 

Statistics Office estimated that the total number 

of indigenous peoples is 6.3 million consisting 

of 85 ethno-linguistic groups. 5 

In 2001, National Commission on Indigenous 

Peoples stated that the total population of 

the indigenous peoples in 2000 was around 

12,887,291 constituting 17 per cent of the 

national population. Of all the Philippine 

islands, Mindanao, in the far South, had the 

largest concentration of ethnic minorities with 

7,917,817 (61%), 4,168,694 (33%) in Luzon 

and 800,780 (6%) in Visayas. 6 

However, the NCIP in its Budget Folio for the 

year 2008 stated that the total population of the 

indigenous peoples is 11,778,190. Of these, 

Mindanao has the highest concentration of 

60.84%, followed by Luzon with 36.10% and 

Visayas 3.06%. 7 

Obviously, NCIP itself does not have exact 

number of indigenous peoples. As the NCIP 

estimates were based on an unofficial count, the 

indigenous population might even exceed 20 

per cent of the national population. In addition, 

the government may have excluded groups or 

individuals as indigenous because they did not 

qualify in the technical definition of the term. 8 

B. The ethno-linguistic group profiles 

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples 

has classified the indigenous communities into 

110 ethno-linguistic groups or tribes who live 

in the various parts of the archipelago. Seven 

ethnographic regions, not political subdivisions, 

were identified under the IPRA which included 

Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) and 

Region I, Region II, Region III and Rest of 

Luzon, Island Groups, Northern and Western 

Mindanao, Eastern and Southern Mindanao and 

Central Mindanao. 9 Within these ethnographic 

areas, indigenous peoples with their social, 

cultural, political, and linguistic features reside. 

Each of these indigenous groups has its own 

history of contact with the dominant Filipino 

society 10 . 

In the Cordillera Adminsitrative Region, 

indigenous peoples are collectively referred to as 

the “Igorots”, meaning “people of the mountain”. 

There are seven major ethno-linguistic groups or 

peoples, namely the Kankanaeys, the Bontocs, 

the Kalingas, the Ifugaos, the Tingguians, 



5. Enumeration Indigenous Peoples In the Philippines by Carmelita N.Ericta, Administrator of National Statistics Offices, Philippines 

6. 2001 Annual Report of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines 

7. NCIP’s Briefing Folio for Fiscal Year 2008 Budget 

8. ADB Report, Chapter 3, Indigenous Peoples/ Ethnic Minorities and Poverty Reduction - Philippines 



AITPN 

11


the Apayao or Isneg and Ibaloy. However, 

these are the popular references to indigenous 

groups, but there are more “peoples” as distinct 

as “ili”. “Ili” is a self identifying group of 

indigenous people, with their own defined 

territory as their ancestral land, and their own 

indigenous socio-cultural systems. 11 The 

Tingguian, Isneg, and northern Kalingas are 

largely swidden (slash-and burn) cultivators 

who depend on farming rice, root crops, and 

vegetables. Along the slopes of Mount Data 

and nearby areas are the Bontoc, Ifugao, and 

Southern Kalinga who are wet-rice cultivators 

and grow their crops both on terraces and 

swidden fields. The Ibaloy and Kankanaey 

inhabit the southern region of the Cordillera and 

their subsistence economy is based on wet and 

dry agriculture. However, in recent times, these 

groups have been integrated into the outside 

market economy with the growth of commercial 

gardening of temperate vegetables. 12 

In Mindanao, indigenous Lumad peoples 

retain their traditional beliefs and customs. 13 

The Lumad groups ranges from 15 to 21 and 

most well known are the T’boli, the B’laan, 

the Subanen, Mandaya, Mamanwa, Manobo, 

etc. However, the Lumad do not recognize the 

Moro as indigenous as they claim that they are 

different from them. 14 The Lumads practiced 

swidden agriculture depending on the land’s 

productivity. Communal sharing of resources 

based on the belief of the sacredness of land 

and nature as divine endowments define their 

relationship with their environment. Their sociopolitical 

arrangements were varied. The Lumad 

remained isolated and withdrawn from the hills 

and forest that were difficult to penetrate. 15 

In the Mindoro Island, there were eight 

indigenous groups who are collectively called 

as “Mangyan”, each having its own tribal name, 

language, and set of customs. These eight 

groups are: Alangan, Bangon, Tau-Buid, Buhid, 

Hanunoo, Tadyawan, Iraya and Ratagnon. 16 

The Mangyan of Mindoro follow swidden 

agriculture combined with hunting, fishing, 

gathering and trade. 17 

11. Indigenous Peoples, the Environment and Human Rights in the Philippines: the Cordillera Experience, By Joan Carling, Chairperson, 

Cordillera Peoples Alliance-Philippines 

October 2001, available at: http://www.asiasource.org/asip/carling.cfm 


13. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED369 

694&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b80141f1e 

14. IWGIA, available at: http://www.iwgia.org/sw16704.asp 

15. LUMAD in Mindanao by Faina Ulindang, available at: http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about_cultarts/comarticles.php?artcl_Id=189 

16. Mangyan Heritage Center, available at: http://www.mangyan.org/tribal/index.html#top 

17. IWGIA, http://www.iwgia.org/sw16704.asp 

12 AITPN


3. Political autonomy/self-determination 

The right to self-determination is central to 

the the rights of indigenous peoples across the 

world. The Philippines is not an exception. 

The Constitution of the Philippines recognises 

the rights of Muslim Moros and Cordillera 

peoples to self-determination in the form of 

autonomy. The Philippine Congress passed the 

Republic Act 6734, also known as the Organic 

Act, which was signed into law by President 

Corazon Aquino on 1 August 1989. It created 

the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao 

(ARMM). On 10 November 1989, a plebiscite 

was called which was boycotted by Moro 

Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and Moro 

National Liberation Front (MNLF). Only four 

provinces—Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu 

and Tawi-Tawi—chose autonomy. 18 It was 

officially inaugurated on 6 November 1990 in 

Cotabato City. 19 

On 22 December 1997, the Cordillera Autonomous 

Region was created under the Republic 

Act No. 8438 (Article I, Sec.1). Article II, 

Sec. 2 of the same Act provides for: 

“Autonomy ensures for the people of the 

Cordillera the right to secure for themselves 

their ancestral domain, develop their economy, 

promote their cultural heritage, and establish a 

system of self-governance within the framework 

of the Philippine Constitution and national 

sovereignty, as well as the territorial integrity of 

the Philippines.” 20 

However, the Organic Act did not embody the 

substance of self-governance and indigenous 

peoples’ control over their resources. The 

Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) called for 

its rejection which was supported by the people 

during the referendum held on this law. 21 

There have been political misrepresentation 

and non-recognition of indigenous peoples in 

political affairs. The indigenous peoples are 

legally entitled to have their Free, Prior and 

Informed Consent (FPIC) obtained prior to start 

of any project, program and activity affecting 

them. However, this right has been subverted 

and blatantly violated. 22 

18. Highlights of the Bangsamoro struggle, The Manilatimes, 25 August 2006 

19. Mindanao Economic Development Council (MEDCo), available at: http://www.medco.gov.ph/medcoweb/regprofl. 

asp?RegAreaID=RAR 

20. Republic Act No.8438, available at: http://elibrary.supremecourt.gov.ph/republic_acts.php?doctype=Republic%20Acts&docid=a45 

475a11ec72b843d74959b60fd7bd645e7197d05e5f#sam 

21. Cordillera Peoples Alliance, available at: http://www.cpaphils.org/campaigns/cpa_history.htm 

22. National Consultation on the 2nd International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, 7 – 9 August 2006, Quezon City, available 

at: http://www.tebtebba.org/tebtebba_files/ipr/philippines/IPDecadeDec.pdf 

AITPN 

13


4. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, 1997 

The Republic Act 8371, otherwise known as 

the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) 

of 1997 was signed into law on 29 October 1997 

by then President Fidel V. Ramos. The drafting 

of the bill started in 1987. It underwent many 

years of consultations and legislative studies, 

particularly in fleshing out the innovative 

indigenous property concept enshrined in the 

1987 Constitution. 

The government of Philippines describes IPRA 

as "the embodiment of the rights and aspirations 

of indigenous peoples”. As stated above, this 

was the first legislation to recognize the rights of 

indigenous peoples in Asia. 

The key elements of IPRA are: a) Rights to 

Ancestral Domains/Ancestral Lands – covers the 

rights of ownership, possession and utilization 

of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains as 

defined by law; b) Rights to Self-Governance 

and Empowerment – recognizes the inherent 

right of ICCs/IPs to self-governance and self 

determination, respects the integrity of their 

values, practices and institutions, and guarantees 

the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their 

economic, social and cultural development; c) 

Social Justice and Human Rights – ensures that 

the employment of any form or coercion against 

ICCs/IPs shall be dealt with by law; and, d) 

Cultural Integrity – includes respect, recognition 

and protection of the right of ICCs/IPs to 

preserve and protect their culture, traditions and 

institutions. It shall consider these rights in the 

formulation and application of national plans and 

policies. 

The IPRA also provided for the establishment 

of the National Commission for Indigenous 

Peoples for implementation of the Act. The 

NCIP has quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial and 

administrative/executive functions. 

The constitutional validity of IPRA was 

challenged before the Philippines Supreme 

Court. On 6 December 2000, the Supreme Court 

upheld its constitutional validity, specifically 

the provisions on the rights to ancestral domains 

and natural resources. The Supreme Court 

decision in the landmark case of Cruz et al. 

vs. Secretary of Environment et al. (G.R. No. 

135385, 06 December 2000) signaled the first 

time in Asia that a national government legally 

recognized the rights of indigenous peoples to 

their ancestral domains, or territories and to 

natural resources. 

14 AITPN


5. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples: An analysis 

A. Overview 

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) 

of 1997 established the National Commission 

on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), following 

a constitutional mandate (Art. 16, Sec. 12), 

replacing two earlier bodies concerned with 

“cultural minorities namely the Office for 

Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC) and 

the Office for Southern Cultural Communities 

(OSCC).” Under section 38 of IPRA, the NCIP 

is the primary government agency mandated 

to formulate and implement policies, plans 

and programs for the recognition, promotion 

and protection of the rights and well-being of 

Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous 

Peoples (ICC/IPs) with due regard to their 

beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions. 23 

NCIP is an independent agency under the office 

of the President (Section 40 of IPRA). 

The NCIP has quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial 

and administrative/executive functions. 


of IPRA, approved on 9 June 1998, spell out the 

procedures for the organisation of the NCIP, 

including its creation, agency, composition, 

appointments, qualifications, tenure and 

compensation of personnel, appointment of 

Commissioners, powers and functions, and 

ethics and codes of conduct of its officers and 

various offices. 24 

B. Composition and selection procedure 

Section 40 of the IPRA states that: 

“The NCIP shall be an independent agency 

under the Office of the President and shall 

be composed of seven (7) Commissioners 

belonging to ICCs/IPs, one (1) of whom shall 

be the Chairperson. The Commissioners shall 

be appointed by the President of the Philippines 

from a list of recommenders submitted by 

authentic ICCs/ IPs: Provided, That the seven (7) 

Commissioners shall be appointed specifically 

from each of the following ethnographic areas: 

Region I and the Cordilleras, Region II, the rest 

of Luzon, Island Groups including Mindoro, 

Palawan, Romblon, Panay and the rest of the 

Visayas; Northern and Western Mindanao; 

Southern and Eastern Mindanao; and Central 

Mindanao: Provided, That at least two (2) of the 

seven (7) Commissioners shall be women.” 

Qualifications: 

The Chairperson and the six Commissioners must 

be natural born citizens of the Philippines and at 

least 35 years of age at the time of appointment. 

At least two of the seven Commissioners must 

be members of the Philippine Bar. The members 

of the NCIP can hold office for a period of three 

years, but they may be re-appointed for another 

term. No person can serve for more than two 

terms. Appointment to any vacancy shall only 

be for the unexpired term of the predecessor 

and in no case shall a member be appointed or 

designated in a temporary or acting capacity 

(Sec. 41, IPRA). 

Flawed appointment procedure: 

The appointment procedures as laid down 

in the Implementing Rules and Regulations 

(IRR) of the IPRA for the appointment of the 

23. Republic Act No 8371 

24. Implementing Rules and Regulations, NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1998 

AITPN 

15


7 Commissioners of the NCIP are vague and 

provide for executive caprice. 

One Commissioner must be compulsorily 

appointed from each of the seven 

ethnographic region. But the IRR does not 

clarify as to what procedure(s) the President 

will adopt or abide by if there is more than one 

candidate is recommended for appointment 

as a Commissioner from a particular 

ethnographic region. A particular ethnographic 

region may consist of several different 

indigenous communities, indigenous peoples’ 

organizations or groups and they would like to 

nominate candidates of their choice. In a true 

democracy, everyone has the right to submit 

his candidature if he or she meets the eligibility 

criteria. 

In the event of multiple recommendations/ 

nominations for the post of the Commissioner 

from a single region, there is simply no 

provision as how the Commissioner from that 

region will be appointed. 

In addition, there is no procedure for 

appointment of the Chairperson of the 

NCIP. Both the IPRA (Section 40) and the IRR 

(Part III, Section 2) only provide that the NCIP 

shall be composed of seven Commissioners 

“one of whom shall be the Chairperson”. The 

IRR is silent on the procedure of appointment 

of the Chairperson by the President which 

leaves a lot of room for politicisation of 

the appointment. 

Removal without investigation: 

The procedure for removal of the members of 

a National Institution on Indigenous Peoples is 

critical for the independence of the institution. 

Part III, Section 7 of the IRR provides that “Any 

member of the NCIP may be removed from 

office for cause, after due notice and hearing, 

by the President on his own initiative or upon 

recommendation by any ICC/IP community 

before the expiration of his term and after 

complying with the due process requirement 

of law.” Section 8 of Part III provides the 

reasons on the basis of which a Commissioner 

may be removed – “The removal for cause of 

any Commissioner shall require the following: 

a) A formal petition or complaint shall be filed 

by any indigenous community to the Office of 

the President in Manila or any of its regional 

field offices; and b) The petition or complaint 

shall include, but not be limited to, a narration 

of facts and circumstances describing the 

crime, illegal act/s, or other act/s contrary to 

customary law which subject the indigenous 

community to unnecessary risks that threaten 

their territorial and cultural integrity, which 

were committed by the Commissioner/s. 

The petitioners shall attach the necessary 

documents supporting the petition or 

complaint.” 

There is no“due process” for removal of the 

accused Commissioner. Section 7 (Part III) 

of the IRR does not lay down any provision 

for requirement of an impartial investigation 

into the allegations as may be contained in 

the petition or complaint from the indigenous 

community as well as the composition of such 

investigation team etc. 

That the President can initiate “removal” 

procedures against any Commissioner on his 

(President’s) own initiative compromises the 

independence and functioning of the National 

Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 

This also reflects that all the members 

including the Chairperson are subservient to 

the President. It could act as an impediment 

in formulating plans and policies for the 

indigenous peoples independently. 

In comparison to Commission on Human 

Rights (CHR), the mode of selection is 

more or less similar but the composition 

of the NCIP is even extensive. As against 

seven Commissioners representing each 

ethnographic region, the CHR is comprised of 

only four Commissioners and one Chairperson 

for the entire nation. 

16 AITPN


The first batch of Commissioners of 

NCIP representing six ethnographic 

regions were appointed on 22 February 

1998. However, the Commissioner for 

Central Mindanao was appointed only 

in 2001. 25 This violated Section 40, which 

requires seven Commissioners to be appointed 

for the Commission and Section 43 which 

requires the President to appoint the seven 

Commissioners within 90 days (Sec. 43) from 

the effectivity of the Act. 26 While IPRA provides 

for two female members in the commission, 

Dolandolan was the only female appointee, 27 

thereby violating the section 40 of IPRA. 

Under the Act, (Sec. 41), at the time of 

appointment, the Commissioners must be 

of proven honesty and integrity. But, the 

Commission has been criticized for not 

representing the Indigenous Peoples from 

the very outset. The body was rocked by 

controversy over the selection and appointment 

of its Commissioners. Some Commissioners 

were either not members of indigenous cultural 

communities or facing graft charges. At least five 

Commissioners were under the investigation of 

the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1998. 28 

The role of the Commissioners is crucial in terms 

of taking decisions for implementation of the 

IPRA and this had created serious implications 

on the independence of the Commissioners. 

Therefore, it is not hard to assume that the 

Commissioners are not independent of the State 

control and are subject to the superintendence, 

directions and control of the government. 

Upon assumption of office, President Gloria 

Macapagal-Arroyo through Executive Order No. 

1 dated 20 February 2001 created the Office of 

the Presidential Adviser on Indigenous Peoples 

Affairs (OPAIPA), headed by Ambassador 

Howard Dee, and delineated its functions to 

ensure the effective implementation of the 

IPRA. The OPAIPA was given the job to review 

the performance, qualifications, and fitness of 

NCIP officers and staff and to institute a process 

for the proper selection of staff of NCIP as 

required by the law. In August 2001, the President 

appointed a new batch of Commissioners after 

a nationwide consultation process involving 

several indigenous peoples’ organizations and 

civil society groups. The appointment of the new 

Commissioners through a consultative process 

and the full support of several indigenous 

peoples’ organizations, civil society, President 

Macapagal-Arroyo had rekindled hopes for the 

successful implementation of the IPRA. 29 But 

the unsatisfactory performance of the NCIP 

seems to have belied those hopes. 

C. Broad mandate 

Competence and effectiveness of a mechanism 

is proportionately related to the nature of the 

mandate it has been conferred with. A broad 

mandate remains crucial for a mechanism to 

be effective. Under the IPRA, the National 

Commission on Indigenous Peoples has been 

provided with a mandate and meets the standards 

provided under the Paris Principles. 

Under Section 39 of IPRA , the NCIP is mandated 

to “…protect and promote the interest and wellbeing 

of the ICCs/IPs with due regard to their 

beliefs, customs, traditions and interest.” 

In order to accomplish its mandate, the NCIP has 

been given the following powers, jurisdiction 

and function (Sec. 44, IPRA): 

a) To serve as the primary government 

agency through which ICCs/IPs can seek 

government assistance and as the medium, 

through which such assistance may be 

extended; 

25. 2002 Annual Report of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples 

26. Republic Act No 8371 

27. Showdown at the IP Corral By Gina Mission, available at: http://gina.ph/CyberDyaryo/features/cd1999_0513_013.htm 

28. IPRA: Staying Alive, By Gina Mission, available at: http://gina.ph/CyberDyaryo/features/cd1999_0429_009.htm 


AITPN 

17


b) To review and assess the conditions of 

ICCs/IPs including existing laws and 

policies pertinent thereto and to propose 

relevant laws and policies to address their 

role in national development; 

c) To formulate and implement policies, 

plans, programs and projects for the 

economic, social and cultural development 

of the ICCs/IPs and to monitor the 

implementation thereof; 

d) To request and engage the services and 

support of experts from other agencies 

of government or employ private experts 

and consultants as may be required in the 

pursuit of its objectives; 

e) To issue certificate of ancestral land/ 

domain title; 

f) Subject to existing laws, to enter into 

contracts, agreements, or arrangement, 

with government or private agencies or 

entities as may be necessary to attain the 

objectives of this Act, and subject to the 

approval of the President, to obtain loans 

from government lending institutions and 

other lending institutions to finance its 

programs; 

g) To negotiate for funds and to accept 

grants, donations, gifts and/or properties 

in whatever form and from whatever 

source, local and international, subject 

to the approval of the President of the 

Philippines, for the benefit of ICCs/IPs 

and administer the same in accordance 

with the terms thereof; or in the absence of 

any condition, in such manner consistent 

with the interest of ICCs/IPs as well as 

existing laws; 

h) To coordinate development programs 

and projects for the advancement of 

the ICCs/IPs and to oversee the proper 


i) To convene periodic conventions or 

assemblies of IPs to review, assess as well 

as propose policies or plans; 

j) To advise the President of the Philippines 

on all matters relating to the ICCs/IPs and 

to submit within sixty (60) days after the 

close of each calendar year, a report of its 

operations and achievements; 

k) To submit to Congress appropriate 

legislative proposals intended to carry out 

the policies under this Act; 

1) To prepare and submit the appropriate 

budget to the Office of the President; 

m) To issue appropriate certification as a precondition 

to the grant of permit, lease, 

grant, or any other similar authority for the 

disposition, utilization, management and 

appropriation by any private individual, 

corporate entity or any government agency, 

corporation or subdivision thereof on any 

part or portion of the ancestral domain 

taking into consideration the consensus 

approval of the ICCs/IPs concerned; 

n) To decide all appeals from the decisions 

and acts of all the various offices within the 

Commission; 

o) To promulgate the necessary rules and 

regulations for the implementation of this 

Act; 

p) To exercise such other powers and functions 

as may be directed by the President of the 

Republic of the Philippines; and 

q) To represent the Philippine ICCs/IPs in all 

international conferences and conventions 

dealing with indigenous peoples and 

otherrelated concerns. 

However, the NCIP has failed to effectively 

implement its mandate till date. Most 

importantly, it failed in its primary role of 

18 AITPN


ensuring the rights of indigenous peoples with 

regard to delineation and titling of ancestral 

domains. This was largely due to inadequate 

funding, bureaucratic hitches, inexperience of 

the NCIP itself and some external constraints 

such as the lack of awareness of the IPRA 

among indigenous peoples, limited involvement 

of Local Government Unit in the NCIP projects, 

distrust, and discrimination of indigenous 

peoples in society coupled with the insincerity 

of the national government to pursue social 

justice for indigenous communities. 

This is despite the fact that IPRA provided for: 

the establishment of “offices within NCIP” for 

the implementation of the policies including 

a) Ancestral Domains office; b) Office on 

Policy, Planning and Research; c) Office of 

Education, Culture and Health; d) Office on 

socio-Economic Services and Special Concern; 

e) Office of empowerment and Human Rights; 

f) Administrative Office and g) Legal Affairs 

Office. The NCIP has also given power to create 

additional offices as it may deem necessary 

subject to existing rules and regulations 

(Sec.47). 

D. Credibility of the Commission 

Independence is the most significant aspect that 

the Paris Principles on National Human Rights 

Institutions seek to ensure. 

Although under the IPRA, the NCIP was created 

as an independent entity, the government’s 

decision to put the NCIP under the Department 

of Agrarian Reform (DAR) through the 

Executive Order No. 364 on 27 September 

2004 citing access to more financial resources, 

among others 30 has curtailed its freedom. This 

further limited the functioning of the NCIP. 

The agrarian reform did not relate to the proper 

recognition of ancestral land rights. 31 

While IPRA claims to recognise ancestral 

land rights through certificates of ancestral 

land/domain titles, this right is still within the 

framework of the State having prior right to 

the people’s natural resources. As is evident in 

Section 51 of IPRA, it mentioned the principle 

of self-delineation by the indigenous people of 

their land. However, in the next Section (Sec. 

52), it assigns to the NCIP and its Ancestral 

Domains Office (ADO) most of the powers of 

decision-making process. 32 

The effectiveness of the NCIP was also 

significantly undermined following a petition 

questioning the constitutionality of IPRA filed 

by former Supreme Court judge Justice Isagani 

Cruz in the Supreme Court in l998. Though, 

the law suit was subsequently dismissed by the 

Supreme Court in 2000. 33 

E. Financial independence 

Paris Principles provide for: 

"2. The national institution shall have an 

infrastructure which is suited to the smooth 

conduct of its activities, in particular adequate 

funding. The purpose of this funding should be 

to enable it to have its own staff and premises, 

in order to be independent of the Government 

and not be subject to financial control which 

might affect its independence". 

NCIP does not have financial independence. It 

has been poorly funded till date. During its first 

three years, the NCIP was virtually crippled 

down following non-release of operational funds 

through Memorandum Order (MO 21) issued by 

then President Joseph Estrada on 21 September 

1998. As the Maintenance and Other Operating 

Expenses funds were not released, almost all 

programs and projects remained unimplemented 

and delayed the processes for the review and 

formulation of new administrative program and 

30. Executive Order No. 364 of the Philippines government 

31. Five Years Down the Drain for Indigenous Peoples, By Jhong Dela Cruz, The Bulatlat, Vol. VI, No. 24, July 23 - 29, 2006 

32. IPRA Critique, Prepared by Cordillera Peoples Alliance and DINTEG, August 1998, page 17, Para. 4 

33. Indigenous Tribes See Unity in Diversity, By Elmer D. Sagbigsal, Volume 2, Number 5, March 10 -16, 2002, Bulatlat 

AITPN 

19


policies. No survey or land delineation could be 

made as well. 34 

Upon assumption of office, the Macapagal 

administration too neglected and refused to to 

provide adequate funds to the NCIP to fully 

implement its programs and projects. NCIP’s 

budget for FY 2002 went through a rigorous 

budget process before the Congress finally 

approved it. Although, NCIP proposed Pesos 

1.03 Billion for FY 2002 to fully implement IPRA 

but after deliberations in the technical budget 

review, the Department of Budget and 

Management (DBM) recommended a Budget 

ceiling of Pesos 390 Million. Later, the NCIP 

budget for FY 2002 was approved to Pesos 

408,846,000.00 which was almost 60% 

reduction from the proposed Pesos 1.03 Billion. 

The 60% reduction greatly affected the Land 

Tenure Security component. 35 However, the 

total releases amounted only to Pesos 

424,197,315.00 or 86.72% of the total 

appropriation as the amount intended for 

the Scholarship Program amounting to P65 

Million was not released. 36 Similarly, out of the 

total appropriation of Pesos 540,320,518 in FY 

2003, only Pesos 397,663,000 or 85.30% was 

released. For the FY 2003, no Capital Outlay 

was released despite lack of equipments, 

thereby, adversely affecting the performance 

of office activities. There was lack of 

computers in central and regional/provincial 

offices as of 2003. 35 

According to NCIP's Annual Reports of 2005 and 

2006, its budgetary allocations were respectively 

Pesos 469,996,601 and Pesos 405,438,000 for the 

FY 2005 and FY 2006. 

In December 2007, the budget of the National 

Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) 

was reportedly increased. Additional Pesos 

6.5 million was allotted to NCIP’s budget for 

the continuation of its literacy and livelihood 

activities for the indigenous peoples and 

Pesos 100,000 was allotted for the NCIP’s IT 

equipment. With these additional allotments, 

the NCIP budget grew from P485.314 million 

to P491.94 million. 38 

Funding for ancestral domain: A case 

study on lack of financial support: 

Section 46 (a), Chapter VII of the Indigenous 

People’s Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 provides 

that: “The ancestral domain office shall be 

responsible for the identification, delineation 

and recognition of ancestral lands/domains. It 

shall also be responsible for the management 

of ancestral lands/domains in accordance with 

the master plan as well as the implementation 

of the ancestral rights of the indigenous cultural 

communities (ICCs) and indigenous peoples 

(IPs).” 

To fund this task, the IPRA provided for “a 

special fund to be known as the Ancestral 

Domains Fund, an initial amount of Pesos 

130,000 to cover compensation for expropriated 

lands, delineation and development of ancestral 

domains. Thereafter, such amount shall be 

included in the annual General Appropriations 

Act (Sec. 71).” 

34. 2001 Annual Report of the National Commission on Indigenous People of the Philippines 




38. Senate of the Philippines - Press Release: ANGARA CALLS FOR SUPPORT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, 25 December 2007, 

available at http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2007/1225_angara1.asp and also see, Press Release: Angara increases budget 

for indigenous peoples, Funds independent study for agrarian reform, 9 December 2007 available at http://www.senate.gov.ph/ 

press_release/2007/1209_angara1.asp 

20 AITPN


However, the Ancestral Domains Fund is highly 

inadequate. There are claims over five million 

hectares of ancestral domains pending issuance 

of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles 

(CADT) and claims for conversion of Certificate 

of Ancestral Domain Certificates (CADC) into 

CADT. The figure could be much higher as lack 

of accurate data on the actual extent and location 

of ancestral domains and lands nationwide 

continue to affect the efficient planning, targeting 

and implementation of ancestral domain and 

land titling. 39 For instance, the 2001 Budget 

allocation of Ancestral Domains & Ancestral 

lands was only P 3 Million whereas nationwide 

there are over 2.5 Million hectares ready for 

conversion to CADT. This was insufficient 

even to prepare documents for processing of 

the CADTs for issuance. 40 

F. Accessibility and transparency 

With regard to the aspect of physical accessibility 

of the NHRIs, the UN Paris Principles on 

National Human Rights Institutions provides, 

“Within the framework of its operation, the 

national institution shall: Establish working 

groups from among its members as necessary, 

and set up local or regional sections to assist it 

in discharging its functions.” 

During its visit to the Philippines in 2002, Dr. 

Rodolfo Stavenhagen, the Special Rapporteur 

on the situation of human rights and fundamental 

freedoms of indigenous people stressed that 

the NCIP ensures the widest participation 

of indigenous peoples by convening the 

National Consultative Assembly of Indigenous 

Peoples. Although, it did convene the National 

Consultative Assembly, there was discontent 

among indigenous peoples on how this was done 

at the provincial level. Individuals who were 

neither native of the communities nor be;ong to 

any organization managed to become members 

of Provincial Coordinating Bodies (PCBs) 

in many provinces. It severely compromised 

the credibility of the National Consultative 

Assembly. 41 

The IPRA (Sec. 45) provides that all official 

records, documents and papers pertaining 

to official acts, transactions or decisions, as 

well as research data used as basis for policy 

development of the Commission shall be made 

accessible to the public. Part II, Sec. 2 of the 

IRR further stipulates that the Commission 

shall submit an Annual Report to the Office 

of the President reflecting the status of 

policy formulation and coordination and the 

implementation of plans, programs projects and 

activities for the best interest of the indigenous 

peoples within sixty (60) days after the end of 

each calendar year. 

As per the National Commission on Indigenous 

Peoples, there were 1,588 personnel as of 2002. 

The Commission had 12 regional offices and 46 

provincial offices and 108 community service 

centres. 42 

39. NCIP, MTPDP for Indigenous Peoples, 2004-2008 


41. Challenges of Implementing the SR’s Recommendations in the Philippines, By Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, Executive Director, Tebtebba, 

Seminar organized by Rights & Democracy with the cooperation of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and 

fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, October 5-7, 2006, Montreal, available at: http://www.dd-rd.ca/site/publications/index. 

php?subsection=catalogue&lang=en&id=1978 

42. Data available with NCIP website 

AITPN 

21


6. NCIP and implementation of IPRA 

The performance of the NCIP in the 

implementation of the Indigenous Peoples 

Rights Act has not been satisfactory. Various 

high ranking officials of the NCIP informed 

Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network 

that the Commission has not been able to achieve 

the desired targets in its performance because 

of acute resource crunch. The most important 

achievement has been its symbolic existence as 

an institution for protection and promotion of the 

rights of the indigenous peoples. The presence 

of NCIP acts as a mechanism of checks upon 

other government departments which would 

otherwise ignore the rights of the indigenous 

peoples and tempt to encroach upon their rights 

with prejudice. 

Though the initial years of the NCIP have not 

been encouraging as far as the implementation 

of the IPRA is concerned, it has certainly made 

some substantive progress in recent years. Yet, 

NCIP failed in its critical role for ensuring the 

rights of indigenous peoples, especially with 

regard to delineation and titling of ancestral 

domains. According to the law, ancestral domain 

claims are to be converted into actual land titles. 

Most importantly, it requires the “free, prior and 

informed consent” of ICCs, before any projects 

can be undertaken by outsiders within the 

ancestral lands. 

Thematic evaluation of some of the important 

domains of the NCIP would give a clear picture 

of its performance. 

I. Right to Ancestral Domains 

Like elsewhere in the world, land is central to 

the indigenous peoples of the Philippines and 

forms the basis of their economic livelihood. 

Land is the source of their spiritual, cultural and 

social identity. Most of the indigenous peoples 

inhabit in areas classified as ancestral domain 

comprising land, inland waters, coastal waters 

and natural resources found therein. In these 

lands can be found their hunting grounds, burial 

grounds, place of worship etc. 43 

The indigenous peoples in the Philippines 

believed that land was usufruct and could not 

be removed from the community’s use. The 

indigenous peoples still possess belief in the 

sanctity of the land, especially when confronted 

with the threat of losing control over their 

homeland. The use of land varied according to 

how they produced what they needed for food 

since time immemorial. As nomadic and seaforagers, 

they shifted their habitation from place 

to place and gathered whatever food they could 

from the land and the waters. They established 

a system of communal ownership when they 

settled into a life of sedentary agriculture. The 

concept of land as granted and entrusted by 

one Creator for everyone to harness, cultivate, 

sustain, and live on is what distinguishes them 

from the rest of the population. This land 

concept has become distinct because it adheres 

to the spirit of collectivism and ejects the 

idea of private property. Subsistence-oriented 

economies and a special relationship with their 

ancestral lands are crucial because they define 

the struggle of the indigenous peoples for selfdetermination. 

44 

To a large extent, this sentiment of the indigenous 

peoples over their lands has been incorporated 

43. Our indigenous brothers, By Anabelle E. Plantilla, The Manila Times, 14 October 2006 



22 AITPN


in the IPRA. The Indigenous Peoples Rights 

Act, 1997 stipulated the Concept of Ancestral 

Domain/Land and Ownership as: 

“Ancestral lands/domains shall include 

such concepts of territories which cover not 

only the physical environment but the total 

environment including the spiritual and 

cultural bonds to the area which the ICCs/ 

IPs possess, occupy and use and to which 

they have claims of ownership.” While 

Sec. 5 defines the concept of ownership as 

“Indigenous concept of ownership sustains 

the view that ancestral domains and all 

resources found therein shall serve as the 

material bases of their cultural integrity. 

The indigenous concept of ownership 

generally holds that ancestral domains 

are the ICC’s/IP’s private but community 

property which belongs to all generations 

and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or 

destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable 

traditional resource rights”. 

However, dispossession of their traditional 

lands and territories is one of the major 

problems being faced by indigenous peoples of 

the Philippines today. In the name of national 

economic development numerous policies 

have been adopted to dispossess indigenous 

peoples from their ancestral lands. Even the 

IPRA has failed to protect the land rights 

of the indigenous peoples and is allegedly 

being used as tools to grab more indigenous 

peoples' land. The Cordillera Peoples Alliance 

criticised the IPRA as it does not provide for 

the actual recognition of ancestral land rights 

and indigenous peoples’ control over their 

resources. It stated the passage of the law on 

indigenous peoples’ rights did not end the 

problems being confronted by the indigenous 

communities in the Cordillera and the rest of the 

country. In fact, there have been serious human 

rights violations perpetrated by the government 

due to continued development aggression and 

militarization thereby denying their collective 

rights over their land and resources. 45 

The major problems witnessed in the 

implementation of ancestral domain rights as 

provided under the IPRA are discussed below: 

A. Delay in processing of CADT and 

CALT 

The performance of the NCIP with regard to 

the titling of the lands for issuing Certificates 

of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) and 

Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs) 

has not been satisfactory. As a result of the delay, 

many indigenous groups increasingly view the 

IPRA as an obstacle to the process of titling 

(identification, delineation and recognition of 

ancestral domain and land claims). 

In its Budget Briefing for 2008, NCIP stated that 

the total estimated area of Ancestral Domain 

was 6,323,195 hectares while the total number 

of applications for Ancestral Domains received 

were 540 covering 5,201,899.9390 hectares. 

The NCIP issued Certificate of Ancestral 

Domain Claim (CADC) for 181 applications 

covering 2,546,033 Hectares while the total 

number Certificate of Ancestral Land Claims 

(CALC) areas numbering 147 is 10,095.8882 

Hectares. Of these, 494,648.9448 hectares 

of CADC areas have been converted to 

30 Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles 

(CADTs) while a total of 167,4169 hectares 

of CALC areas have been converted to 109 

Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs). 

CADTs has been issued in respect of a total 

area of 1,116,439.3620 hectares involving 57 

ADs while the total area of CALT issued is 

4,855.6990 hectares involving 172 Ancestral 

Claims. Grand total of CADTs and CALTs 

issued is 1,121,295.0610 hectares by 2007. 46 

According to Ms Myrna Cagaoas, Director of 

Ancestral Domain Office, NCIP has issued 

45. Cordillera Peoples Alliance, available at: http://www.cpaphils.org/campaigns/cpa_history.htm 

46. NCIP’s Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Briefing Folio 

AITPN 

23


a total of 150 Certificates of Ancestral Land 

Titles (CALTs) and 56 Certificates of Ancestral 

Domain Title (CADTs) comprising an area of 

1,114,857.17 hectares as of 4 January 2007. 47 

According to the 2006 Annual Report of 

the NCIP, a total area of 3,770,286 hectares 

of land constituting 81% of the total target 

area is pending titling at different stages of 

the process. 48 Prior to start of the titling of 

ancestral domains by NCIP, the DENR via its 

Department Administrative Order No. 2 issued 

181 Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claims 

(CADCs) covering more 2,532,000 hectares of 

ancestral domains in four years from 1993 to 

1997. Whereas in 6 years between 2001 and 

2006, the NCIP could issue land titles only for 

about half of the areas that DENR had issued in 

3 years time. 49 

During the Fiscal Year 2006, the NCIP could 

issue only 18 CADTs covering 269,049.4201 

hectares to 50,847 indigenous peoples and 109 

CALTs covering 1,011.6464 hectares to 1,681 

indigenous peoples. 50 

The first Certificate of Ancestral Domain 

Title (CADT) comprising ancestral domain 

of 29,444.34 hectares was issued to the Bago 

tribe of Bakun, Benguet only on 20 July 2002. 

Another certificate covering 11,811.6 hectares 

was issued to the Manobo tribe of Lanuza, 

Surigao Province on 30 November 2002 after 

almost five years of IPRA implementation. 51 

The Commissioners of the Ist Commission 

were sworn into office in 1998. However, 

1st Commission was unable to function to 

the fullest, particularly in terms of titling of 

ancestral domains and lands, mainly due to 

litigations in the Supreme Court challenging 

the constitutional validity of the IPRA in 1998. 

The dispute was resolved only after 2 years i.e. 

in 2000, when the Supreme Court upheld the 

constitutionality of the IPRA. 52 

The process of titling of CADTs and CALTs by 

the NCIP is extremely slow. After his visit to the 

Philippines in 2002, the Special Rapporteur on 

the situation of human rights and fundamental 

freedoms of indigenous peoples noted, “whilst 

some progress has been made in this respect, 

it is also clear that the legal recognition of 

ancestral domains and land titles has been a 

slow and cumbersome process, full of pitfalls 

and ambiguities, which often drive indigenous 

communities to despair of the usefulness of 

IPRA as an effective legal instrument.” 53 

The NCIP officials admitted the observation 

of the Special Rapporteur but they cited lack 

of adequate funds as the major constraints for 

being not able to expedite the process of titling 

of CADTs and CALTs at the desired pace. 54 

There are also number of causes which constitute 

as roadblocks to the granting of CADTs and 

CALTs. These obstacles are discussed below. 

Lack of funds: 

Lack of funds has been adversely affecting the 

facilitative functions and in providing services 

related to delineation, titling, development and 

protection of ancestral domains and lands. 55 

47. Agency set to give more domain titles, 15 February 2007, Sun.Star Bagui, available at: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ 

bag/2007/02/15/news/agency.set.to.give.more.domain.titles.html 

48. See NCIP Annual Report of 2006 

49. See Chapter 1 of ILO’s Report titled “A Journey of Hope” 2005, volume 1 

50. NCIP’s Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Briefing Folio 



53. Human Rights Records of the Phililppines, Spectacular on paper, ACHR, November 2003 

54. Interview of Chairperson, Commissioners and the Bureau directors of the NCIP by AITPN representative between 4-10 March 2008 


24 AITPN


NCIP’s annual budget for the Ancestral Domain 

Office is merely Pesos 31 million. 56 

Overlapping land uses and development 

programmes and projects: 

Overlapping land uses and development 

programmes and projects are the major causes 

for delays in granting of CADTs and CALTs. 

Government land uses such as civil and military 

reservations and development programmes and 

projects within the ancestral domains often lead 

to conflicts. Many ancestral domains either face 

actual or potential conflict with reservations 

proclaimed by the Government of Philiipines. 57 

Tedious and expensive ground survey: 

Clause (g) of Rule VIII of the IPR requires 

conducting of a perimeter survey and 

preparation of survey plan of the area with 

necessary technical description, including the 

significant natural features and landmarks found 

therein. Such ground survey (as differentiated 

from indicative survey) of ancestral domains 

for purposes of titling requires financial and 

technical resources. The existing average official 

cost of surveying per hectare is Php 1,200.00. 

Given that the ancestral domains areas are of 

large sizes and generally situated in rugged 

terrains, a number of technical issues including 

level accuracy also arise. 

The other major roadblocks responsible for 

delay in granting of CADTs and CALTs by the 

NCIP are: (i) Overlapping land tenure laws/ 

regulations; (ii) Displaced indigenous peoples; 

(iii) Overlapping laws and policies; (iv) Counter 

productive interventions; and (v) NCIP’s 

lack of own capacity in respect of processing 

titling. Further, the process of land delineation 

and recognition is complicated, costly, time 

consuming, and exhausting as those provided 

for in earlier laws. The preparation of necessary 

documents, maps and other requirements, and 

in crawling through the NCIP bureaucracy is 

itself exhausting. The process is also prone to 

graft and corruption and irregularities. 58 

B. Contradictions in the IPRA on 

indigenous peoples’ ancestral domain 

rights vis-à-vis authority of the State 

There are serious contradictions in the IPRA on 

ancestral domain rights vis-à-vis the authority 

of the State under the regalian doctrine which 

is a legal fiction based on the belief that when 

Ferdinand Magellan planted the Spanish flag 

on Macau Island, he simultaneously declared 

the Spanish King’s ownership of the entire 

archipelago. According to this doctrine, the 

sovereign and property rights of the nation’s 

indigenous forebears were usurped during the 

16th century when the islands were claimed on 

behalf of the Spanish Crown. 59 

Under the framework of the regalian doctrine, 

all lands not covered by private titles are public 

and State is the lawful owner of such lands. 

A title is valid only when it could be proved 

that it originated from a grant or sale from the 

Spanish Crown, or its conceptual heir, the state. 

The ownership and control of natural resources 

is therefore reserved to the State. Upon their 

occupation of the Philippines during the turn 

of the 20th century, the Americans also adopted 

the regalian doctrine by enacting the Public 

Land Acts and making interventions through 

the judiciary. 

After independence in 1946, the Government 

of Philippines followed the footsteps of the 

colonial regimes and hence, all lands not covered 

by official documentary certificates of the title 

are presumed to be owned by the Republic of 

Philippines. This doctrine forms the basis of the 

Philippine land property system, and has been 

enshrined in the Philippine Constitutions of 

56. Agency set to give more domain titles, 15 February 2007, Sun.Star Bagui, available at: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ 

bag/2007/02/15/news/agency.set.to.give.more.domain.titles.html 


58. IPRA Critique, Prepared by Cordillera Peoples Alliance and DINTEG, August 1998 


AITPN 

25


1935, 1973 and 1987. Section 2 of Article XII 

(National Economy and Patrimony) of the 1987 

Constitution of Philippines incorporated the 

regalian doctrine in the following manner: 

“Section 2- 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. With the exception 

of agricultural lands, all other natural 

resources shall not be alienated. The 

exploration, development, and utilization 

of natural resources shall be under the full 

control and supervision of the State.” 

The succeeding section i.e., section 3 of chapter 

XII authorizes the State to classify the lands 

under public domain. 

The efforts of the government of Philippines to 

do justice with the ICC/IPs by way enactment 

of the IPRA is commendable. However, these 

efforts seem to be half-hearted as the regalian 

doctrine as enshrined in Chapter XII of the 

present Constitution remains unchanged thereby 

restricting the indigenous peoples from fully 

enjoying their right to ancestral domain under 

IPRA. Section 7 (g) of the IPRA has put a rider 

on the “right to claim parts of reservations” in 

the following manner: 

“(g) Right to claim parts of reservations- 

The right to claim parts of the ancestral 

domains which have been reserved for 

various purposes, except those reserved 

and intended for common and public 

welfare and service” 

Other than the regalian doctrine, there are 

contradictory provisions in the IPRA itself. 

Section 56 provides that property rights within 

the ancestral domains already existing and/ 

or vested upon affectivity of this Act shall 

be recognized and respected. This section 

apparently legitimizes the seizure of ancestral 

territory prior to the enactment of the IPRA. 

There are glaring examples of continuing 

deprivation of the indigenous communities of 

their ancestral domains. 

Case 1: Aeta ancestral domains 

Despite issuance of Certificate of Ancestral 

Domain Claim (CADC No. 107) covering 

an area of 5,515 hectares by Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources to the Aeta 

communities in Bamban, Tarlac and intervention 

of the NCIP, business projects including by 

the Clark Development Corporation (CDC) 

continues well within areas covered by the 

Aeta’s ancestral domain. The Aetas complained 

that the CDC guards have continually harassed 

and threatened them. 60 

Case 2: Mangyan’s loss of their ancestral 

domains covered within the reservation 

of Mindoro College of Agriculture and 

Technology. 

The Mangyans who are considered as the original 

inhabitants and the only group indigenous to 

the island of Mindoro in the western part of 

the Philippines continue to be deprived of their 

ancestral domain consisting of 3,680 hectares 

which was formerly reserved for the Mindoro 

National Agricultural School which later 

became the Mindoro College of Agriculture and 

Technology (MCAT). 61 

C. Mining Act of 1995 - An obstacle to 

enjoyment of the right to ancestral domain 

and natural resources 

The passage of Republic Act 7942, or the Mining 

60. See Chapter 2 - Government Reservation in Ancestral Domains: The Search for Solutions of ILO’s Report titled “A Journey of 

Hope” 2005, volume 1 

61. See Chapter 2 - Government Reservation in Ancestral Domains: The Search for Solutions of ILO’s Report titled “A Journey of 

Hope” 2005, volume 1 

26 AITPN


Act of 1995, re-enforced the marginalisation 

of the indigenous peoples. This is especially 

so for the B'laan people located at the quadriboundary 

of the provinces of south Cotabato, 

Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur and Cotabato. 

As reported in newsletter No. 2/April–May– 

June 1998 of the KASAMA SA KALIKASAN/ 

Solidarity Philippines Australia Network, 

throughout 1996, the B’laan indigenous people 

were hounded from their ancestral lands 

by military forces working on behalf of the 

notorious Australian Company Western Mining 

Corporation. According to a 1996 fact finding 

mission, an ethnocidal war was being waged by 

the security forces against the B’laans, under the 

guise of fighting the Moro Islamic Liberation 

Front. 

Art. II, Sec. 22 of the Philippine Constitution 

states that, “The State recognises and promotes 

the rights of Indigenous cultural communities 

within the framework of national unity and 

development”. Although the general concern of 

the state for the indigenous peoples is clearly 

expressed in this provision, there has been a 

problem on how to translate this into clear 

and definite terms. The IPRA was hailed as a 

major victory for the indigenous communities 

as it allowed the communities to finally legally 

claim the land which they occupied since time 

immemorial. But there had been many criticisms 

of the IPRA especially in term of its conflict with 

other existing laws like the Philippine Mining 

Act of 1995 as well as with customary laws. 

In February 2005, the Supreme Court upheld 

the constitutionality of the Mining Act of 

1995 with finality. The Supreme Court said 

that the national government has the liberty to 

allow 100 percent foreign control of mineral 

resources and contracted areas for their mining 

operations in the name of national development, 

even in indigenous lands. Thus, ancestral land 

recognition is merely a stewardship arrangement 

and the State can still intervene legally on how 

the resources in indigenous peoples territories 

can be utilized. This allowed the Philippine 

government to aggressively embark on a total 

sell-out of the people’s mineral resources 

with several incentives to foreign mining 

companies. 62 

Conflict with the mining firms started to 

widen as the richest mineral deposits falls in 

these ancestral lands. This led in the attempt 

to harmonize the IPRA to the Mining Act to 

remove the barriers the IPRA presented to 

mining. Further, to facilitate the entry of the 

mining fraternity in these areas, there was an 

attempt to harmonize the National Integrated 

Areas System and the Local Government Unit 

Code. 63 This process has turned a full circle as 

NCIP has been brought under the Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources which also 

controls the Mines and Geosciences Bureau 

(MGB). 

The failure of the NCIP to uphold its mandate 

has been glaring. In fact, NCIP is being used 

to forcibly implement mining operations in 

the ancestral domains. New mining companies 

would make a beeline with the signing of a new 

memorandum of agreement in September 2006 

in line with the Arroyo government’s aggressive 

promotion of investments in mining operations. 

The passage of the Mining Act of 1995 and the 

Supreme Court’s decision removed all legal 

obstacles for unabated mining in the country. 64 

According to the Mines and Geosciences 

Bureau (MGB) the Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources, some 12.2 million 

hectares were up for grabs by medium to largescale 

mining companies which already applied 

for mining rights. The MGB had laid out plans 

to make way for 24 priority mining projects 

62. Corporate Mining: Assault on IP Lands, By Joan Carling, The Bulatlat, October 16 - 22, 2005 

63. The indigenous peoples opposition, By Anabelle E. Plantilla 20 January 2007, The Manila Times 

64. Open-Pit Mining Destroyed Village in Zambales, By Abner Bolos, The Bulatlat, Dec. 31, 2006 - Jan. 6, 2007 

AITPN 

27


meant to raise a total investment of over $8 

billion in 2013 covering at least 40.65 percent 

of the country’s total land area. Kalipunan ng 

mga Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas 

(KAMP - National Federation of Indigenous 

Peoples Organizations in the Philippines) stated 

that of the 24 identified priority projects of the 

government for large scale mining, 18 cover 

indigenous territories. Based on the Mining 

Act of 1995, about 15 million hectares will be 

opened for mining operations, 53 percent of 

which are located within indigenous territories. 

As of June 2006, 286 applications were pending 

before MGB, while 39 have been approved and 

registered in Central Luzon alone. 65 

According to estimates of KAMP, more than 

16,000 indigenous small scale miners and more 

than 100,000 indigenous peasant families will 

lose their livelihood sources if government 

approve the mining applications. Two projects, 

the Teresa Gold Project in Mangkayan and 

Padcal Sto. Tomas Copper Expansion Project in 

Tuba, were already under operation. 66 

II. Right to Self Governance and 

Empowerment 

A. Violations of the requirement of Free and 

Prior Informed Consent 

Ensuring that the requirement of Free, Prior 

and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the indigenous 

peoples are implemented before carrying out 

any development policy, programe or activity 

including the entry of the military remain one of 

the serious challenges of the NCIP. 

Section 59 of the IPRA categorically prohibit all 

departments and governmental agencies from 

issuing, renewing, or granting any concession, 

license or lease, or entering into any productionsharing 

agreement, without prior certification 

from the NCIP that the area affected does not 

overlap with any ancestral domain. The section 

clearly provided that no certification shall be 

issued by the NCIP without the free and prior 

informed and written consent of ICCs/IPs 

concerned. It also provided that no department, 

government agency or government-owned 

or controlled corporation may issue new 

concession, license, lease, or production sharing 

agreement while there is a pending application 

for a CADT and that the ICCs/IPs shall have the 

right to stop or suspend any project that has not 

satisfied the requirement of this free and prior 

informed consent. 


of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act laid down 

in details under sections 3 to 9 the manner and 

procedure for obtaining FPIC and obligations of 

the proponent etc. 

Section 3 of IRR empowers the ICCs/IPs 

concerned to determine for themselves policies, 

development programs, projects and plans to 

meet their identified priority needs and concerns 

and exercise the right to accept or reject a certain 

development intervention in their particular 

communities. 

Section 7 of the IRR outlines the policies, 

programs, projects, plans and activities which 

are subject to free and prior informed consent. 

These include – (i) exploration, development 

and use of natural resources; (ii) research 

and bioprospecting; (iii) displacement and 

relocation; (iv) archeological explorations; 

(v) policies affecting indigenous peoples like 

Executive Order 263 (Community-based Forest 

Management); and (vi) entry of military. 

Section 9(c) under Part II of Rule VIII of 

IRR states “The NCIP, upon complaint of the 

ICCs/IPs, or on its own initiative, shall issue 

compulsory processes to stop or suspend any 

project that has not satisfied the consultation 

65. Mining Firms Scramble for Lands in Central Luzon, by Jhong Dela Cruz, The Bulatlat, Vol. VI, No. 27, August 13 - 19, 2006 


28 AITPN


process and the requirements of Free and Prior 

Informed Consent of the ICCs/IPs or upon 

violation of any of the terms and conditions of 

the contract, lease, permit or production sharing 

agreement.” 

Section 10 under Part II of Rule VIII further 

states that the NCIP shall have the “right to 

stop and suspend the implementation of any 

development program, project, policy or plan, 

and after due investigation and proof that consent 

was obtained due to manipulation, coercion, 

intimidation and deceit or where proponent has 

violated any or all of the terms and conditions 

stipulated in the Memorandum of Agreement.” 

Literally, the requirement of FPIC read with 

the provision for Certificate Precondition 

provided under section 59 of the IPRA serves 

as strong safeguards against encroachment into 

ancestral domains of the ICCs/IPs. However, an 

assessment of effectiveness of these provisions 

as tools against violations of the rights of 

ancestral domains of the indigenous peoples 

shows otherwise. It has been found that the 

requirements of FPIC have been violated 

routinely. 

As of 16 May 2007, the NCIP has issued 671 

Certificates of Precondition under section 59 of 

IPRA on applications without ancestral domain 

overlap and 67 Certificates Precondition with 

issued with Free and Prior Informed Consent by 


In 2003, the NCIP issued its first guidelines on 

the process of obtaining free, prior and informed 

consent. Reportedly under pressure from the 

Federal Government in view of the government’s 

determination to increase mining activities, the 

NCIP revised its 2003 Guidelines in 2006 vide 

its Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2006 

titled The Free and Prior Informed Consent 

(FPIC) Guidelines of 2006. 68 

Indigenous communities alleged that the 

revised guidelines made the process easier 

for companies, especially mining companies 

to enter into ancestral domains. 69 The new 

guidelines shortened the period for completion 

of the FPIC process from 180 days to 90 days 70 

and the requirement of consensus within the 

affected communities has been reduced to 

consultations within the Council of Elders. The 

revised guidelines also limited the FPIC process 

only to the officially recognized indigenous 

lands (indigenous territories included on the 

NCIP’s primary list). 71 

It has also been alleged that the NCIP has been 

imposing the new FPIC guidelines upon the 

communities to secure FPIC for the mining 

companies. Some of the glaring examples 

included two cases in the ancestral domain of 

the Subanons in Canatuan, Siocon where TVI 

Resource Development Phils. Inc applied 

for two new Mineral Production Sharing 

Agreements (MPSA) and another three cases 

in the ancestral domain of the Subanons in 

Bayog, Zamboanga del Sur where three mining 

companies applied for MPSA and Exploration 

Permits. In all these five cases, the NCIP refused 

to hold the Consultative Council Assembly 

for FPIC at venues desired by the indigenous 

peoples and excluded the participation of all 

those communities of the same ancestral domain 

but not directly affected with the proposed 

MPSA. 72 

67. Statement of H.E. Bayani S. Mercado, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Philippine during the Sixth Session of the Permanent 

Forum on Indigenous Issues on the theme “Indigenous lands, territories and natural resources” , available at: http://www. 

un.int/philippines/statements/20070517.htm 

68. IWGIA’s The Indigenous World-2007 

69. Indigenous folk see govt as pro-mining, By Ellen Red, InsideMindanao.com, available at: http://www.manilatimes.net/ 

national/2006/dec/25/yehey/prov/20061225pro4.html 

70. Mining Firms Scramble for Lands in Central Luzon, by Jhong Dela Cruz, The Bulatlat, Vol. VI, No. 27, August 13 - 19, 2006 

71. IWGIA’s The Indigenous World-2007 

72. SUBANON LEADERS QUESTION NCIP GUIDELINES ON FPIC PROCESS, Bulatlat.com, 18 August 2007, available at: http:// 

dcmiphil.org/dcmi/2007/08/18/subanon-leaders-question-ncip-guidelines-on-fpic-process/ 

AITPN 

29


The NCIP has been also accused of siding 

with the mining companies. 73 In several cases, 

NCIP Commissioners or Regional Directors 

have colluded with proponents of development 

projects to obtain FPIC in a fraudulent manner. 

There were key NCIP personnel involved 

in the creation of fake tribal councils from 

whom certifications of FPIC were obtained 

for contentious projects. 74 According to Ka 

Daniel L.N. Gibon, spokesperson of Cordillera 

Peoples Democratic Front (CPDF)-Kalinga the 

free prior informed consent (FPIC) and bogus 

consultations are covertly and forcibly pushed 

in communities to hasten mining operations. 75 

It has also been alleged that until they get 

a manufactured FPIC, the government and 

company representatives often indulge in 

manipulative actions to divide the communities. 

Mining companies resort to various forms of 

deception and divide and rule tactics including 

misinformation drives, bribery of local leaders, 

deception through promises of employment, 

funds, projects, scholarships and health facilities 

among others, in order to get the support of 

affected communities. At the same time, they 

consciously hide the adverse and long term 

impacts of their mining operations. 

For instance, the Toronto Ventures Inc. in 

Canatuan and Anglo-American Platinum Inc. in 

Conner, Apayao are cases beyond the FPIC. The 

NCIP has consistently denied the indigenous 

communities’ opposition by issuing FPIC, as 

in the case of the Arimco Mining Company in 

Nueva Vizcaya, affecting the Ifugao people; the 

Anglo American mining exploration in Conner, 

Apayao and Balbalan, Kalinga affecting the 

Isneg and Buaya tribes. 77 

B. Legal aid assistance 

Legal service assistance is one of the significant 

functions that the NCIP carries out under the 

component of right to self-governance and 

empowerment. The NCIP has a specific Legal 

Affairs Office (LAO) created under Section 

46 (g) of IPRA. Besides, being the adviser 

of the NCIP on legal matters concerning the 

indigenous peoples, it is mandated to provide 

legal assistance to the indigenous peoples in 

litigations involving the community interest. 

It is also mandated to conduct preliminary 

investigation on complaints of violations of the 

rights of the indigenous peoples and based on 

its findings; it is required to initiate the filing of 

appropriate legal or administrative action. 78 

As per official documents received by the 

AITPN from the NCIP, during 2004-2008, the 

NCIP has intervened in 21 cases involving 

the issue ancestral domains, land rights and 

rights over natural resources of the indigenous 

peoples. Of these, only four cases have been 

decided while in the remaining cases, the orders 

of the NCIP have been challenged and pending 

adjudication. NCIP also received 16 cases under 

its original jurisdiction during 2004-2008 and 

all these cases are pending determination. It 

also received 5 cases of national significance 

concerns (NSC) during 2002-2007. 

The Legal Affairs Office also reviews 

Memorandum of Agreements (MoA), tender 

legal opinions/comments and advisory. As per 

the NCIP Annual Report of 2005, the LAO 

reviewed 23 MoAs; prepared position papers on 

at least 7 House Bills; 4 House Resolutions; and 

10 Senate Bills. 79 In 2006, LAO wrote 74 legal 

opinions/comments/advisories and investigated 

73. ‘Mining in the Philippins, Concerns and Conflicts’, Report of a Fact-Finding Team to the Philippines, July-August 2006 

74. UNWGIP 22nd Session 19-23, July 2004, Standard Setting: Free Prior and Informed Consent, Statement by Catalino L. Corpuz, Jr. 

75. CPDF Call in Kalinga: Fetad vs. the AFP, Mining Transnationals by ARTHUR L. ALLAD-IW, Bulatlat.com, Vol. VI, No. 15 

May 21-27, 2006, available at: http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-15/6-15-cpdf.htm 

76. Corporate Mining: An Unjust Imposition on IP Collective Rights and Systems, By Joan Carling, The Bulatlat, October 30 - November 

5, 2005 


78. See Section 46(g) of IPRA 


30 AITPN


five cases apart from attending hearings in 

courts. 80 

C. Human Rights - Not a NCIP agenda 

The NCIP has miserably failed to fulfill its 

mandate for safeguarding human rights of the 

indigenous peoples. The rights of indigenous 

peoples continued to be violated as a result 

of mining activities. Dispossession of their 

traditional lands and territories is one of the 

major problems being faced by indigenous 

peoples of the Philippines today. Several cases 

have been documented but many were never 

reported. These cases remain unresolved and 

the military or paramilitary troops involved 

are yet to be punished. As the government 

justified human rights violations as part of the 

anti-insurgency campaign, more violations 

continued unabated. The affected communities 

are forcibly evacuated or food-blockaded 

and sometimes subjected to repeated artillery 

bombing, properties destroyed, leaders shot or 

tortured, or people arrested arbitrarily. 81 

During his second visit to the Philippines in 

the first week of February 2007, Dr. Rodolfo 

Stavenhagen, the United Nations Special 

Rapporteur on the situation of indigenous 

peoples rights, stated “I am sorry to learn 

that the pattern (of human rights violations) 

continues, and that there is an increase of 

these incidents.” “In some respects, the 

human rights situation of indigenous peoples 

has deteriorated.” “Even more worrisome is 

that the legal framework of current economic 

policies favors the dispossession of indigenous 

lands and resources for the benefit of a handful 

of international corporations or other private 

interests.” 82 

Earlier in 2002, Dr. Stavenhagen recommended 

the Philippine government to review its laws, 

programs and polices for the sector. 83 However, 

this has fallen on deaf ears till date as is evident 

from the alarmingly high trend of human rights 

violations of the indigenous peoples since Gloria 

Macapagal-Arroyo assumed Presidency. 

Several indigenous leaders were killed as they 

espouse causes that undermine the interests of 

big investors in mineral exploration. According 

to the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Watch, 

a network of indigenous peoples organisations 

and non-government organizations working 

on human rights, 123 indigenous persons 

were killed from 2001 February to 11 January 

2007. The highest incidence of alleged stateperpetrated 

killings of indigenous peoples 

was reported in 2006 with 42 individuals. 84 

On 8 June 2006, Cordillera indigenous leader 

Markus Bangit was killed. 85 On 19 March 2004, 

tribal leader Edgardo Linsag was abducted for 

his opposition to the logging and plywood 

Programs and Projects and PFIC at Campawan, 

Baganga, Davao Oriental. 86 

There have been disproportionate killings of 

indigenous peoples. By 9 September 2006, 96 

cases of killings had been committed against 

indigenous peoples in the Philippines since 

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed 

office in January 2001. 87 

The Cordillera Administrative Region has been 

identified as highly prone to extra-judicial 


81. Background & Guide On Engaging the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous People, By Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, available at: 

http://www.tebtebba.org/about_us/publications/special/UNSR/UNSRText.pdf 

82. UN Rep Says Killings Hurting Arroyo’s Credibility Abroad, The Bulatlat, Vol. VII, No. 2, Feb 11 - 17, 2007 


84. The Pattern of Human Rights Violations of Indigenous Peoples Continues--UN Special Rapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Cordillera 

Peoples Alliance, available at: http://www.cpaphils.org/campaigns/unsr%20updates_8feb07.htm 


86. 2004 Annual Report of the National Commission on Indigenous People 

87. Available at http://www.iwgia.org/sw16706.asp#516_13500 

AITPN 

31


killings. It recorded human rights abuses 

affecting 2,312 individuals, 710 families and at 

least two indigenous communities. 88 

The current policy of the government poses 

further threats to the indigenous peoples. The 

Human Security Act 2007 or the Anti-Terrorism 

Bill (ATB), if signed into a law, among others, 

could also be used to facilitate economic 

plunder like liberalization of the mining industry 

especially in indigenous peoples’ ancestral 

domains. The ATB would be used as a tool to 

suppress people’s opposition. 89 Recruitment of 

tribe members in paramilitary groups has also 

aggravated the indigenous peoples’ plight. 90 

On 30 October 2003, the Commission on 

Human Rights requested the NCIP to report 

any violation against the indigenous peoples’ 

rights so that necessary action could be 

taken. 91 However, the NCIP has failed to 

properly address majority of the human rights 

cases filed or in behalf of the indigenous 

peoples. 92 There is little information about 

the numbers of human rights cases involving 

the security forces handled by the NCIP. In a 

rare case, concerning four minors belonging to 

indigenous peoples who were killed allegedly 

by members of the security force of the Siraway 

Plywood and Lumber Company in Tungawan, 

Zamboanga Sibugay on 16 July 2003, former 

Secretary of Department of the Interior and 

Local Government (DILG), Joey Lina ordered 

the arrest of the alleged perpetrators through a 

memorandum after the case was endorsed to 

the office of the DILG. 93 

III. Right to Socio-Economic Services 

Section 5 of the Rules and Regulations 

implementing the IPRA provides that the 

indigenous cultural communities/indigenous 

peoples are entitled to basic services and that 

equitable delivery of basic services shall be the 

focus of the NCIP’s Five Year Master Plan. To 

ensure equitable delivery of basic services to 

the indigenous peoples, the NCIP is required 

to work in close coordination with other 

governmental agencies and establish indigenous 

peoples desks with such agencies. 

However, as experiences show, indigenous 

peoples have been largely excluded, 

discriminated against and marginalized. The 

indigenous peoples of the Philippines are 

among the most marginalized in Southeast Asia. 

The mainstream Philippine society ignored its 

indigenous component and did little to improve 

the standards of living of its indigenous cultural 

communities or to overcome the high rates of 

poverty and low levels of human development 

as defined by the United Nations. For instance, 

the indigenous peoples in San Luis composed 

of the Manobo, Banwaon and the Tala-andig 

are reported to be among the poorest in the 

country. Many of them suffer from the effects 

of poverty: periods of hunger, high morbidity 

and infant mortality rates, illiteracy, and a 

lack of basic social and other services. 94 This 

is the result of continuous displacement 

and ejection from their Ancestral Domains/ 

Ancestral Lands, low income and economic 

productivity, poor agricultural production, low 

educational attainment, lack of infrastructures 

88. Five Years Down the Drain for Indigenous Peoples, The Bulatlat, Vol. VI, No. 24, July 23 - 29, 2006, http://www.bulatlat.com/ 

news/6-24/6-24-sip.htm 

89. As CPA hits Cordi congressmen for backing ATB, NUJP Questions ATB Constitutionality, By Kim Quitasol, The Bulatlat, Vol. VII, 

No. 4, Feb 25 - March 3, 2007 


91. Report rights abuses, CHR chief tells NCIP, Sun Star Davio, 31 October 2003 



94. E/CN.4/2003/90/Add.3 of 5 March 2003 

32 AITPN


for transportation and communication and poor 

delivery of basic services. 95 

As indigenous peoples are displaced from 

their traditional territories, they often end 

up as poor urban migrants where they live in 

dismal conditions, without adequate shelter, 

jobs, or basic social services. They cannot 

afford expensive housing, do not easily find 

jobs and even low-paying jobs are out of reach 

as in most cases they lack formal education. 

For instance, more than half of Baguio City’s 

total population comprises indigenous peoples 

from the Cordillera villages. The main factors 

pushing indigenous farmers to the city are 

lack of livelihood sources, almost nonexistent 

basic social services, conflicts or war 

and militarization. About 65 per cent of the 

indigenous migrants in Baguio City suffer from 

extreme poverty due to underemployment and 

joblessness. 96 

A. Socio-economic development 

The performance of the NCIP in delivering 

socio-economic services has been mixed. 

During the Fiscal Year 2005, the NCIP claimed 

to have implemented - a total of 142 livelihood 

projects benefiting directly some 1,136 families 

from different indigenous community groups, 13 

agro-industrial technology transfer projects, 67 

small social infrastructure projects; conducted 

41 training sessions under entrepreneurial 

training program; and extended assistance 

to 33 cooperatives from 2 regions under the 

cooperative assistance program. 97 

According to its Annual Report of 2006, the 

NCIP has reportedly spent a total of Pesos 

6,576,410.00 during the financial year 2006. 

Out of these, an amount of Pesos 4,851,450.00 

was spent on implementation of livelihood and 

entrepreneurship program while an amount 

of Pesos 1,078,100.00 was spent on delivery 

of social services and an amount of pesos 

646,860.00 was spent on craft production. 

While the NCIP claimed to have delivered 

services to best of its capacities, socio-economic 

conditions of majority of indigenous peoples 

remain very poor. In far-flung rural areas in 

particular, the State has largely neglected the 

need for alternative livelihoods and the delivery 

of social services such as health, education and 

community infrastructure. This is made worse 

by the privatisation, commodification, underfunding 

and increased cost of such services, the 

impact of which is felt most in the least accessible 

areas, where most indigenous peoples live. 98 

A vast majority of the indigenous population 

are still economically backward, poor and 

remained low in Human Development Index 

rating. 99 The income of indigenous peoples is 

below national average. For instance, in 1997 

in the Caraga region, the average income of 

indigenous peoples was 42 per cent lower than 

the national average. Basic services such as 

health and education are more easily available 

in urban areas, leaving out the rural poor. In the 

Cordillera region poor families in urban areas 

account for 14 per cent as compared to 55 per 

cent in rural areas. 100 

According to the revised Family Income 

and Expenditure Survey of 2000 (Census of 

Population and Housing 2000), regional poverty 

incidence rate is the highest in the five regions 

with substantial population of indigenous 

peoples. The regional poverty incidence 

was 59.8 in Autonomous Region in Muslim 

Mindanao (ARMM) which has 21.7% IP 

population; 33.1 in Region XI which has 14% 

IP population; 46.8 in Region XII which has 

13.5% IP population; 37.6 in CAR region which 



97. NCIP Annual Report of 2005 

98. Available with IWGIA at: http://www.iwgia.org/sw16706.asp#516_13545 

99. ILO Report The Road to Empowerment: Strengthening the Indigienous Peoples Act, Volume I – New ways Old Challenges 


AITPN 

33


has 11.9% IP population and 30.4% in Region II 

which has 10.5. 101 

B. Right to Health, Education and 

Culture 

Section 45 (c) of the IPRA provides for an 

Office on Education, Culture and Health within 

the NCIP which shall be responsible for the 

effective implementation of the education, 

health, cultural and related rights as provided in 

the IPRA. As with the socio-economic services, 

the performance of NCIP has been mixed. 

Health 

In its Annual Reports of 2005 and 2006, the 

NCIP has claimed to have continuing tie-up work 

and coordination with various stakeholders. It 

reports that its Health Development Division 

has been coordinating with various partner 

agencies like the Department of Health (DOH) 

in prevention and eradication of malaria; 

Philippine Coalition Against Tuberculosis 

(PhilCAT) in the management of tuberculosis; 

Foundation of Our Lady of Peace Mission, Inc. 

(FOLMI) for imparting training to Barangay 

Health Workers; Coalition for the Elimination of 

Lymphatic Filariasis (CELF) for the elimination 

of lymphatic filariasis; Philippine Institute 

of Traditional and Alternative Health Care 

(PITACH) for promotion of Herbal Medicine 

and Accupressure Therapy; and Council for 

the Welfare of Children (CWC) for conducting 

training and awareness workshops on the rights 

of the indigenous children and children involved 

in armed conflicts. 

The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office 

(PCSO), Philippine Amusement and Gaming 

Corporation (PAGCOR) and DOH have been 

supplying the NCIP medicines required during 

its medical missions while the PCSO has also 

been extending financial help to the hospitalised 

indigenous patients. 102 

However, indigenous peoples’ health still 

remains very poor. A Research study “The 

Health and Nutrition Situation of Children 

and Women in Indigenous Communities: A 

Preliminary Review” conducted by the Social 

Development Research Centre covering the 

period 1993-2005, among others, found that: (a) 

There is continued absence or lack of basic health 

personnel, facilities, resources and information 

in the extremely poor upland groups; (b) There 

is a serious lack of information on the nutrition 

status across the groups. For many of them, 

poor nutrition, especially among the children 

and mothers, is often a direct or indirect cause 

of their common illnesses and deaths; (c) 

Drugs for treatment are still underutilised and 

the communities still depend mainly on their 

traditional practices (e.g., for birth delivery) and 

treatment for illness (herbs). 103 

According the above study, data on their nutrition 

and health behavior patterns shows that: (a) 

The indigenous groups’ health and nutrition 

practices are still very much influenced by their 

traditions and cultural values; (b) The adoption 

of utilization of outside initiatives - like drugs, 

assistance from medical professionals, family 

planning- appears to be slow; (c) They have 

deficient food intake/diet due primarily to the 

overall increasing poverty conditions in these 

areas which is aggravated by the rapid depletion 

of their natural resources; and (d) The nutrition 

value in their food is unbalanced, i.e., more 

carbohydrates and starchy food while deficient 

in protein, vitamins, and minerals. A variety 

of factors may explain for the inadequate diet 

of these upland indigenous groups (e.g., kind 

of bio-physical environment, subsistence 

production, lack of knowledge on nutritious 

food). The review also revealed and further 

confirmed that: (a) current efforts and activities 

to improve the health and nutrition status of 

101. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE PHILIPPINES: DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND CHALLENGES by Erlinda M. Capones, 

Director, Social Development Staff of National Economic and Development Authority Manila, Philippines 


103. Social Development Research Centre’s research paper titled, The Health and Nutrition Situation of Children and Women in Indigenous 

Communities: A Preliminary Review, available at: http://serp-p.pids.gov.ph/details.php3?tid=1505 

34 AITPN


children and women in indigenous communities 

are limited in terms of coverage of communities 

that are scattered throughout the country, and 

the services provided, and (b) there is a lack 

of documentation of these few efforts and 

activities that are aimed to improve the health 

and nutrition situation of children and women in 

these communities. The review concluded that 

the health and nutrition problems of these and 

many other indigenous peoples demonstrate not 

simply a technical problem, i.e., lack of health 

facilities or health personnel. The study, more 

importantly, confirms the indigenous peoples’ 

continued marginalized status in Philippine 

society. There is a great deal of inadequacy in 

the quality and quantity of services required to 

respond to their health and other basic needs. 

That their health and nutrition problems should 

be understood and acted on as a consequence 

of their economic impoverishment (e.g., low 

productivity, low income) poses a pressing 

challenge to both researchers and policy makers 

who are truly committed to assist in the complex 

task of upland development. 104 

Malnutrition was on the rise in the Cordillera 

region. Nine per cent of pre-school children 

were classified as either moderately or severely 

underweight in 1999 as compared to 5 per cent 

in 1998. Maternal care as well as access to 

water and basic sanitation facilities continues to 

be a problem for indigenous peoples. Only 19 

per cent in Kalinga and 34 per cent in Ifugao 

have facilities for sewage and garbage disposal. 

The spectre of tuberculosis continues to haunt 

the region. 105 

In its Annual Report of 2005, NCIP itself 

asserted that basic health services in far-flung 

areas are seldom or never availed of by the 

indigenous communities. It cites the reasons 

either of lack of awareness about these basic 

health services of the government among the 

indigenous peoples or physical inaccessibility 

of the government health facilities to the 

indigenous peoples. 106 As per estimates of 

NCIP, 35 persons, mostly children, died due 

to diarrohea in tribal hinterland San Luis, 

Agusan del Sur since October 2006. Besides, 

dengue fever claimed four lives including three 

children in Bayugan, Agusan del Sur. 107 Lack of 

potable water compound the situation. At least 

24 persons died after an outbreak of amoebiasis 

in Agusan del Sur villages in the last quarter of 

2006 due to contamination of water. 108 

Earlier in 2002, Dr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, 

UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of 

Indigenous Peoples also reported that the human 

development indicators for the indigenous 

peoples are lower and poverty indicators are 

higher than those of the rest of society. 109 

Right to education and culture 

The right to education and right to culture 

are closely related to each other. NCIP’s 

performance in the promotion of these rights of 

the indigenous peoples has been mixed. Most 

of the NCIP educational programs have direct 

or indirect impacts on the cultural rights of the 

indigenous peoples. 

As reported in its Annual Report of 2005, the 

NCIP claimed to have developed a culture 

sensitive Core Curriculum for Indigenous 

Peoples on Alternative Learning System (ALS) 

in coordination with the Bureau of Alternative 

Learning System (BALS) of the Department 

104. Social Development Research Centre’s research paper titled, The Health and Nutrition Situation of Children and Women in Indigenous 

Communities: A Preliminary Review, available at: http://serp-p.pids.gov.ph/details.php3?tid=1505 


106. See page 29 of NCIP Annual Report of 2005 

107. Indigenous office wants govt to address diarrhea, 1 February 2007, The Manila Times 

108. Alert on as amoebiasis kills 24 in Agusan del Sur villages, 26 November 2006, The Manila Times 

109. UN Special Rapporteur’s report available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/AllSymbols/568F8E64E2800006C1256 

CF7005D2593/$File/G0311521.doc?OpenElement 

AITPN 

35


of Education (DepEd) in 2005. The NCIP has 

also reportedly actively participated in the 

full establishment and operationalisation of 

a Tagbanua School of Life called “Balay Ta 

Kinatakwanan eg Kabui” at the Tending Island 

in the Calamianes Group of Islands in Northern 

Palawan. NCIP is a member of the Working 

Management Board of the said school. 110 

NCIP has been carrying out its Education 

Assistance Program (NCIP-EAP). In its Annual 

Report of 2005, the NCIP reported that a total 

of 9,728 during the School Year 1999-2000, a 

total of 10,717 during the School Year 2000- 

2001, a total of 10,034 during the School Year 

2001-2002, a total of 10,356 during the School 

Year 2002-2003, a total of 11,222 during the 

School Year 2003-2004 and a total of 9,135 IP 

students received grants under the Education 

Assistance Program. For School Year 2003- 

2004, an amount of PhP 30 million was released 

for this program. 111 During the academic year 

2005-2006, the NCIP spent PhP 52.621 million 

benefiting a total of 11,989 grantees. 112 

The development of a Core Framework for 

documentation of indigenous knowledge system 

and practices (IKSPs) is quite significant. The 

IKSPs are considered and expected to be vital in 

the nation-wide formulation of Ancestral Domain 

Sustainable Development and Protection Plans 

(ADSDPPs). Pursuant to its aim to make IKSP a 

part of local governance, the Office of Education, 

Culture and Health of the NCIP participated in 

the Training of Trainers (ToT) on Appreciating 

and Promoting Indigenous Knowledge System 

and Practices in Local Governance at Supreme 

Hotel, Baguio City on 4-6 October 2006. 113 

Nonetheless, education is still not within the easy 

reach of members of at least nine indigenous 

tribes in Central Luzon alone. For instance, about 

13,665 indigenous childrenn, which is about 15 

per cent of the 91,102 indigenous peoples of 

school age were not enrolled in 2005. Dropout 

rate is high especially among elementary 

students. This was largely due to poverty and 

scant government funds. In fact, the money for 

the NCIP’s educational assistance program in 

Central Luzon came from the “pork barrel” 

funds of a few legislators. 114 

According to NCIP, development aggression 

could very well serve as the death knell for 

the cultural traditions, customs, beliefs and 

practices of the indigenous people due to 

the country’s drive towards modernization, 

industrialization or globalization in indigenous 

peoples’ areas. 115 The indigenous people are 

on verge of losing their identity and their 

way of life. 116 Literacy rates are lowest in 

Mindanao’s Lumad areas and among the 

Negrito groups, due to poverty, lack of school 

facilities and the insensitivity of most school 

curricula to indigenous language and culture. 

Long-standing distortions of history and 

culture in school curricula, textbooks and 

the mass media have not been rectified, thus 

allowing misconceptions and discriminatory 

attitudes against indigenous peoples to persist. 

Valuable aspects of indigenous culture are 

being lost, or distorted and commercialized, 

thus undermining the cultural integrity of 


110. See page 32 of NCIP’s Annual Report of 2005 

111. See page 35 of NCIP Annual Report of 2005 



114. Indigenous people have little access to education, INQ7.Net, 26 April 2006 



117. Available with IWGIA at: http://www.iwgia.org/sw16706.asp#516_13545 

36 AITPN


7. Proceedings of the National Seminar titled 

National Institutions on Indigenous Peoples: 

The Experience of the Philippines 

On 29-30 March 2008, Asian Indigenous and 

Tribal Peoples Network organized a national 

seminar titled “National Seminar on National 

Institutions on Indigenous Peoples: The 

Experience of the Philippines” at Fersal Place 

Hotel, 131 Malakas Street, Diliman, Quezon 

City, Philippines. The aim of the seminar was 

to assess the implementation of IPRA and the 

perfromance of the NCIP to see whether it 

could draw experiences from similar laws and 

situations or whether good practices from the 

IPRA and NCIP can be replicated in other Asian 

countries for protection and promotion of the 

rights of indigenous peoples. 

The Opening Session was addressed by Attorney 

Mr Gregorio Andolana, Prof. Bennagen and 

Ms. Myrna L Caoagas, Director, Ancestral 

Domains Office of NCIP. 

Attorney Gregorio Andolana, Former Member 

of the House of Representatives and Chairman 

of the Board of the Indigenous Peoples 

Research Centre, Mindanao who was one of 

the main drafters of the IPRA provided the 

genesis of IPRA - how IPRA a came about and 

of course, what protocol the formal enactment 

of the law which respect and recognizes the 

rights of the indigenous cultural communities 

and their ancestral domains. He stated that long 

before the Spanish colonization, the indigenous 

cultural communities had all elements of a 

sovereign state. They had the territory, land and 

resource, the people who organized themselves 

as sovereign communities. 

Before the enactment of the 1987 Constitution, 

the indigenous peoples had lost their inherent 

right to self governance and empowerment. 

AITPN 

It is only upon the enactment of 1987 

Constitution that the rights of the indigenous 

cultural communities are being respected and 

recognized. 

Attorney Andolana stated the difficulties 

faced while getting the IPRA passed as the 

“Congress is not a congregation of lawmakers 

but a congregation of vested interests of 

loggers, of ranchers, of big plantation owner, 

of banana corporate representatives.” He stated 

that Section 56 of the IPRA which begin with 

“Subject to vested prior rights…….” has always 

been used as a deterrent to the right to self 

determination, the right to self-governance and 

the right of the indigenous peoples to ancestral 

domains. According to him, the Government is 

responsible for the “poor implementation” of 

the IPRA. He added that the local governments 

especially the politicians would not like that the 

IPs be empowered for fear of losing political 

domain. Attorney Andolana is of the view that 

the IPs should have political empowerment. 

“For the IPs to be liberated, they must not only 

have the titles of ancestral domains but also have 

economic and political empowerment. The IPs in 

their respective communities must also practice 

not only customary laws as to how policies are 

made but also be empowered to legislate in their 

respective domain”, he asserted. To realize this, 

he said, “NCIP should move as fast as possible by 

creating as many tribal barrangays as possible. 

If there are already barrangays, these should be 

converted into tribal barrangays.” He revealed 

that “only 10% or even less percentage of IPs 

have representation in the LGUs.” Attorney 

Andolana, among others, recommended that 

“NCIP should exercise its jurisdiction in 

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao 

37


with respect to identification, delineation and 

issuance of title of Ancestral Domain and 

to establish an institute of IP customary laws 

and alternative conflict resolution.” He 

suggested that IPs should not be “adversaries” 

of NCIP rather always be “partners” of NCIP. 

At the same time, he added, NCIP must also 

call upon the IPs to share their “experiences”. 

Finally, Attorney Andolana strongly proposed 

that the IPs should create a “National Forum” 

and carry out a sustained “lobbying” with the 

politicians. 

Prof. Ponciano Bennagen, Anthropologist and 

former Commissioner in the Constitutional 

commission which drafted the present 

Constitution in 1986 in his address stated 

that the indigenous peoples had within them 

the “institutions of autonomy” before the 

arrival of Islam or Western institutions of 

domination. Theoretically, the bundle of rights 

provided under the IPRA is very nice, he said. 

Unfortunately, the institutions of domination 

that were generated by series of colonization 

continue to exert their influence on the existing 

NCIP, Professor Bennagen lamented. He pointed 

out that the “NCIP has exposed its vulnerability 

by towing the line of big corporations and State 

bureaucracy.” Professor Bennagen stressed the 

need for a “through going understanding” of 

what NCIP means for the indigenous peoples 

and communities to assert their rights within 

these dominant national institutions. Otherwise 

it will take much longer time for the indigenous 

communities to really consolidate the surviving 

institutions of autonomy and to prevail upon the 

State institutions, he said. 

Ms. Myrna Caoagas, Director, Ancestral 

Domains Office of NCIP, while discussing the 

non-implementation of the IPRA, stated that 

“not only the NCIP but the indigenous peoples 

are also to be blamed as they are also part of 

the NCIP”. She outlined that NCIP did not 

have enough budget till 2002 while titling and 

delineation was included in the NCIP budget 

only in 2003. Ms Caoagas highlighted NCIP’s 

one of the prioritized programmes of creating 

“Provincial Consultative Bodies” which has 

already been started from the provinces which 

will eventually go up to the ethnographic 

regions. To fast track CADT claims, NCIP 

has started training regional officers for titling 

and delineation from 2004 to early 2006, and 

NCIP was able to title one million hectares till 

now, asserted Ms Caoagas. On cases related to 

violations of Ancestral Domain Right of the IPs, 

she revealed, there were “no funds to be used 

by Legal Officers/Regional Hearing Officers” 

during the hearing of cases. NCIP requested 

the Congress and the Senate to increase the 

budget but they did not consider it, added Ms 

Caoagas. She pointed out that although there is 

requirement of production of “only one of the 

proofs listed under IPRA” for delineation, NCIP 

has been “asking for production of all proofs” 

listed in the IPRA in practice. Besides, CADTs 

are issued in the “name of the community” not 

in the “name of an individual claimant” and 

“applications for CADTs are accepted only in 

name of the community not in the name of the 

person.” 

The Working Session I on situation of the 

indigenous peoples of the Philippines was 

addressed by a number of speakers. 

Mr Lagtum Pasag, former Commissioner of 

NCIP Lagtum Pasag highlighted that “not all 

land titles given/issued by the NCIP to the 

indigenous peoples are registered with the Land 

Registration Authority.” Citing example of 

“the Mangyan tribe people who did not receive 

the necessary assistance when they wanted 

to implement their cultural way of conflict 

resolution,” the former Commissioner exposed 

the “acute lack of funds” which hinder in fully 

implementing the Indigenous Peoples Rights 

Act. 

Ms Nemia I. Pareza of EPISCOPAL Commission 

was of the opinion that some indigenous 

communities have Certificate of Ancestral 

Domain Titles but these titles have not given 

them “assured security of their development” as 

well as the “right to manage their resources.” 

“Inherent right” of the indigenous peoples to 

38 AITPN


resources and land even within the Ancestral 

Domain areas is not recognized so is the “right 

to self-governance” as provided in the IPRA, 

remarked Ms Pareza. Analyzing the status of 

IPRA implementation, Ms Pareza observed 

“even after 10 years of IPRA implementation, 

indigenous peoples are continuously losing 

tenurial rights. Land grabbing by non-indigenous 

peoples is still very common. IPs are also losing 

their lands to the so-called development projects, 

mining projects, etc.” 

Datu Antonio Lumandung of Region X explained 

how his region has been made a mining region. 

He stated that most political leaders “support 

mining” and divided the indigenous peoples by 

paying “bribe and inducements.” Expressing 

apprehension, Datu Lumandung was of the 

view that “Bukidnon area would soon be opened 

up for mining operations.” He questioned 

the “genuineness of the Free Prior Informed 

Consent being obtained” in some of the mining 

applications pursuant to which MoUs have been 

signed with some of the tribes in the region. 

“There is lack of information from NCIP 

about implementation of IPRA particularly 

legal implications for the IP communities,” he 

stated. Datu Lumandung also highlighted the 

problems in the “constitution of the Provincial 

Consultative Body” and the “procedure of 

releasing/awarding of project funds” by the 

NCIP. 

Mr Artiso Mandawa, Member (IP sector) of 

National Anti- Poverty Commission highlighted 

the existence of contradictory laws and policies 

with IPRA. Mr. Artiso Mandawa of Palawan 

stated that “the very intention of the IPRA 

is good but there are laws and policies which 

are contradictory to the IPRA and therefore 

negates the affirmative actions of the IPRA.” He 

revealed that almost 80% of Palawan is covered 

by mining applications. 

Prudencio Mansigue, Community leader of 

Bannuaon Tribe in Agusan Sur of Region XIII 

stated the presence of mining companies in San 

Luis which is very rich in natural resources. 

However, “it is the companies not the IP 

communities who are benefiting from these 

natural resources”, asserted Mr Mansigue. 

Expressing serious concern, he stated that 

indigenous peoples are caught in the conflict 

between the armed groups and the security 

forces. 

Mr Timuay Woy Lim P. Wong of Central 

Mindanao stressed the need of NCIP’s local and 

regional offices to be able to do some changes in 

the implementation of works as well as financial 

plans to suit local situations. He stated how 

“B’laan ancestral territories are illegally given 

to non-indigenous people, yet no compensation 

has been given to the B’laan tribes.” 

Expressing concerns, Gilbert P. Hogang of 

KASAPI stated that there is no support of any 

kind from the local government units to the 

indigenous peoples in Region II. “All local 

and nationalized banks closed any kind of 

borrowings to the people of the area, thereby, 

increasing the vulnerability of the IPs towards 

inducements by the mining companies,” he 

said. Mr Hogang recommended that the NCIP 

should defend the legal challenges up to the 

Supreme Court till the title is awarded. He is of 

the view that the process of Free Prior Informed 

Consent should not be that “prescriptive” and 

there should be some sort of “flexibility” as all 

the regions are not similar and identical. He 

further recommended that NCIP should increase 

its efforts of collaboration with NGOs and IP 

organizations as it will help to understand what 

the NCIP is really doing. 

Working session II on International 

mechanisms was addressed by Mr Suhas 

Chakma, Mr Edtami Mansayagan and Mr 

Ervin Juit. 

Mr Chakma stated in his opinion, in comparison 

to the National Commission on Scheduled 

Tribes in India, National Foundation for the 

Development of Indigenous Nationalities 

AITPN 

39


of Nepal and the Chittagong Hill Tracts 

Affairs Ministry in Bangladesh, National 

Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the 

Philippines is the best national institution on 

indigenous peoples. 

Providing insight into the history of development 

of National Human Rights Institutions, Mr 

Chakma stated the first national institution 

on human rights in the Asian region was not 

established by any democrat but by one of the 

worst dictator viz Suharto in Indonesia. Indonesia 

is the first country to establish a NHRC known 

as KOMNAS HAM. It was not effective in the 

beginning but the role of the KOMNAS HAM 

has been commendable on many areas. 

Mr Chakma provided the background 

information on the Paris Principles on National 

Human Rights Institutions – the minimum 

standards. In many areas, Mr Chakma stated 

the NCIP is above the minimum benchmark 

prescribed under the Paris Principles. For 

example, decisions given by the NCIP could 

be challenged only before the Supreme Court. 

Secondly, pursuing a legal cause for IP rights 

under the IPRA is more convenient, expeditious 

and cheaper than under the normal judicial 

system of the Philippines. At the same time, 

NCIP fails to comply with the Paris Principles 

relating to independence and pluralism in its 

composition, nomination processes and financial 

autonomy. 

Further, Mr Chakma stated that capacity 

building programmes for the National Human 

Rights Commissions in Asia Pacific region are 

being conducted by the Asia Pacific Forum on 

NHRIs. The National institutions on indigenous 

peoples also require similar programmes to 

build its human capacity. Unless this is done, 

it is really difficult for the NIIPs to fulfill their 

mandates. The NIIPs are being marginalized by 

NHRIs. 

He highlighted dual role and responsibility of 

indigenous peoples: to scrutinize and condemn 

the failures of the NIIPs in one hand; to advocate 

for these institutions so that more space for 

indigenous peoples can be created. 

With an encouraging note, Ervin Juit of 

Indigenous Peoples Resource Center, Mindanao 

stated that “if the affected people are determined 

they can survive and over come challenges.” 

He lamented that the NCIP do not even have 

the “basic information about the various IP 

tribes.” “It accepts applications for CADT 

from different communities involving the same 

territory without verifying whose territory it is,” 

observed Mr Juit. He recommended that NCIP 

should install a mechanism that would monitor 

and evaluate the land titles, CADT titles. 

“Because of lack of monitoring mechanisms, the 

IPs are deprived from knowing what is exactly 

happening,” he said. 

Mr Edtami Mansayagan, Former Commissioner 

of NCIP and General Secretary of Lumad 

Mindanaw Peoples’ Federation stated that NCIP 

is usually under tremendous pressure from the 

Office of the President and there are serious 

bureaucratic hick-ups in the commission. He 

highlighted how “NCIP has been drum beating 

the lack of funds for its inability to implement 

many of the crucial projects but has not come up 

with a workable solution to arrange the required 

funds either.” According to him, the situations 

of the IPs are not similar and identical across 

Philippines, hence cannot be solved with a 

similar and identical solution. Mr Mansayagan 

recommended that NCIP should promulgate 

alternative supplementary guidelines in the 

AD delineation to basically address the need to 

officially notify the other government agencies 

pertaining to the grant of applications of the IPs 

and encouraging these agencies to cooperate on 

the delineation process. 

Replies by Ms Myrna Caoagas, Director, 

Ancestral Domains Office: 

A number of questions were directed towards 

NCIP. Ms Myrna Caoagas, Director, Ancestral 

40 AITPN


Domains Office replied to a number of questions 

raised by the participants. 

With regard to implementation of IPRA in 

2002, NCIP was able to draft and promulgate 

Administrative Orders No.1 and 2 (Series of 

2002). There were not really enough funds with 

the NCIP till 2002. It was only in 2003, that 

titling and delineation was included in the NCIP 

budget to implement the IPRA. 

With regard to the Administrative Order for 

the creation of Provincial Consultative Bodies, 

NCIP started from the provinces and NCIP hopes 

that it would go up to the ethnographic regions. 

In 2008, the NCIP already prioritised this as one 

of the programmes to be implemented. 

Up to 2002 since the IPRA was passed in 1998, 

there was no empowerment of the communities 

to be able to say yes or no to a project. Because 

it was only in 2003, the requirement of Free 

Prior Informed Consent was implemented after 

the related guidelines were promulgated. She 

further stated 20 million Pesos was created for 

CADT delineation but there was no established 

system for titling and delineation during that 

time. In 2004, 56 prioritised provincial offices 

were given computers out of the 20 million 

pesos received from the President; 

During 2004 upto early 2006, NCIP started 

training regional officers for titling and 

delineation. Till now, NCIP is able to title 1 

million hectares. 

She explained the problems faced by 

NCIP while approving survey plans. Other 

agencies including the Department of Natural 

Resources (DENR) questioned the authority to 

approve the surveys. Therefore, NCIP had to 

hold several meetings to sort out the differences 

because according to the DENR, it is the only 

competent authority to approve surveys. Again 

when the NCIP registered CADTs, the Land 

Registration Authority created problems saying 

as to how the DENR can register Ancestral 

Lands and Ancestral waters. They cited the 

lack of appropriate reference in the Presidential 

Decree there is no reference to the Ancestral 

Domain and Ancestral Land. So, the LRA people 

would ask what book we are going to refer for 

registration of Ancestral domains and Ancestral 

waters. And again, we had to sit down with them 

to solve the problems through memoranda and 

agreements. 

Further, there is lack of funds. There were no 

funds to be used by the legal officers/Regional 

Hearing Officers during the hearing of cases. 

The NCIP put the supplementary budget during 

the tenure of Chairperson Lingating but the 

Congress and the Senate did not consider it. 

During the Working Session III on the 

functioning of the NCIP (Social, Economic and 

Cultural development and Human Rights of IPs 

was addressed by many participants. 

Regretting the non-implementation of the 

IPRA in the Autonomous Region of Muslim 

Mindanao (ARMM), Santos M. Unsad of 

Timmuay Justice and Governance explained 

the continued discrimination being faced by the 

Teduray, Lambangian and Dulangan Manobo 

tribes in the region. He urged the NCIP to hold 

nation-wide debate on the “resolution of the 

Regional Legislative Assembly (RLA)” and 

implementation of the IPRA while keeping 

in mind the issue of jurisdiction under the 

RLA 269. Mr Unsad recommended that the 

selection of the NCIP staff and establishment 

of accountability especially at the regional 

level must be ensured given the involvement 

of NCIP staff for awarding leases to the mining 

companies. He also recommended that NCIP 

must conduct a survey of all the indigenous 

peoples and ancestral domains.He presented a 

discussion paper highlighting his communities’ 

problems 

Ms Zenaida Pawid from Cordillera region 

observed that because of the failure of NCIP, 

“UNDP funds meant for NCIP” are being given to 

the Department of Agrarian Reforms and National 

Anti-Poverty Commission. She suggested that 

AITPN 

41


instead of implementing programmes through 

Department of Agrarian Reforms and National 

Anti-Poverty Commission, NCIP should 

directly implement a development plan under 

programmes such as “Environment - Preserving 

Ancestral Domains;” “Governance and 

Political Integration - Philippines Autonomous 

Regions;” and “Poverty Alleviation - Income 

generation schemes.” Among others, Madam 

Pawid recommended the NCIP to establish 

one “Indigenous Peoples Research and Learing 

Center” in each of the seven ethnographic 

regions, making available all “reports and 

books” relating to the indigenous peoples in these 

centers; to ensure that IP issues are more widely 

covered by the “media;” making provisions for 

“data banking;” incorporation of “Indigenous 

Knowledge system” in the component of 


Plans; setting up “case law and Courts of 

customary law;” setting up “human rights 

centers” in all the seven ethnographic regions 

with “IP experts”; and education, including the 

programme to impart “IP studies and knowledge 

system” in colleges and universities. 

Ms Maxine Tanya M.Hamada of INCITEGOV 

highlighted how the functioning of the NCIP 

was influenced while being initially directly 

under the Office of the President. At times, 

NCIP represented itself as a proxy of the Office 

of the President. “At present, we are at a juncture 

when the democratic institutions are very 

eroded and those institutions that are hoped to 

strengthen the mandate of the NCIP are pulling 

it away from it,” she said. As the Philippines is 

again approaching to another political juncture, 

whether we are ready for articulation of our 

rights in the prospective democratic transition 

is crucial, she pondered. 

Ms Masli A.Quilaman, Director, Office of 

Empowerment and Human Rights, NCIP spoke 

about the reasons why most basic services and 

socio-economic services, health, education, 

infrastructure does not reaches the indigenous 

peoples. He stated that “neglect by the local 

government officials, prevalent discrimination 

against IPs and lack of indigenous peoples 

representatives at the policy decision making 

level in the LGUs” remained the factors. The 

main problems facing the IPs are “development 

aggression through mining; logging, big 

plantations; and “armed conflict” as the victims 

are always the IPs whether they are involved 

directly as a party or sides with either the 

Government or the militant groups, stated Director 

Quilaman. He rued that the “legal provisions for 

mandatory representation of the IPs in LGUs at 

the provincial, city and municipality legislative 

council” have not yet been implemented by 

the Government. However, he mentioned that 

NCIP in consultation with some Provincial 

Consultative Body (PCB) members and some 

non-PCB IP leaders is drafting four draft models 

in consultation to ensure implementation of 

mandatory representation of IPs in the LGUs. 

Besides, Office of Empowerment and Human 

Rights is focusing on the situation of the IP 

children in armed conflict under the programme 

called DDRI- demobilization, disarmament, 

rehabilitation and finally integration with 

families, he stated. He pointed out that “as of 

now, NCIP has not been able to come up with 

its guidelines on tribal barrangays.” 

Mr. Jimid Mansayagan of Kebager te 

Ked-Inged (KTKI) highlighted the complicated, 

cumbersome and time-consuming procedures for 

processing of CADT and CALT applications by 

the NCIP. “Instead of notifying by itself, NCIP 

should allow the CADT applicants to notify 

other agencies,” he suggested. Mr Mansayagan 

is of the view that the “affected IP communities” 

should be able to determine whether “Free Prior 

Informed Consent” is obtained genuinely. “This 

power should not be exercised by the NCIP,” he 

further stated. Mr Mansayagan also expressed 

concern about the “lack of funds” to process 

CADT applications. “As of now, NCIP has no 

reliable census of the indigenous peoples and 

in the absence of a reliable census recording 

all IPs, it is difficult for successful deliveries of 

services,” he stated. The indigenous peoples, 

he recommended, “should constitute a national 

level IP forum.” 

42 AITPN


Ms Jocelyn Villenueva, Executive Director of 

Legal Resource Center stated that under the 

IPRA, NCIP have quasi-judicial powers but these 

powers have never been used for the upliftment 

of the conditions of the indigenous peoples. She 

wondered why these powers have never been 

used and why cannot NCIP immediately cancel 

the applications of mining companies. She 

stressed that IPRA is social justice legislation 

and therefore be at higher level than any laws or 

policies. 

In Working Session IV on Strengthening the 

Safeguards/Mechanisms of IP Rights in the 

Philippines chaired by Renuka Srinivasan of 

the European Commission 

The following recommendations were made at 

the conference: 

Census: 

Considering that there is no reliable census on 

all indigenous peoples and the indispensability 

of such census for proper implementation of the 

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act 1997, the NCIP 

should conduct a census of indigenous peoples. 

Indigenous peoples’ participation: 

Recognising the indispensability of the 

participation of people, NCIP should facilitate 

the creation of “National Indigenous Peoples 

Forum” represented by the community leaders 

to ensure participation of indigenous peoples in 

decision-making including raising indigenous 

issues with the Congress and Senate; 

Ancestral domains: 

NCIP should conduct a survey of the ancestral 

domains; 

NCIP should strengthen institutional capacity 

building of indigenous peoples by including 

social preparation for processing CADTs 

application; 

Given the lack of funds and therefore, the 

inability to implement many of the crucial 

projects, NCIP should prepare a budget for 

AITPN 

CADTs and create a section within NCIP 

specifically for fund raising from international 

community and directly helping a focused 

constituency building. 

In the meantime, NCIP should fast track the 

applications for ancestral domains by issuing 

supplementary guidelines in the process of 

delineation of Ancestral Domains to address the 

need to officially notify the other government 

agencies pertaining to the grant of applications 

to the indigenous peoples, encouraging these 

agencies to cooperate on the delineation process 

to ensure that the areas enjoy the status as 

defacto ancestral domain. 

Customary laws: 

The customary laws of indigenous peoples 

should be recognized and NCIP should establish 

an Institute of indigenous peoples customary 

laws and alternative conflict resolution in line 

with the proposal of Modified Jury System 

on Court of Customary Law. The Indigenous 

Peoples’ Council of Elders who will be on the 

Jury will have the opportunity to have continu 

ous legal education. 

Autonomy and self-governance: 

The concept of tribal barrangay of governance 

must be recognized as the starting point for IP 

communities for political empowerment and 

NCIP should create as many tribal barrangays 

as possible. 

The NCIP should establish one Indigenous 

Peoples Research and Learning Center in each 

of the seven ethnographic regions; 

Indigenous Knowledge: 

Indigenous Knowledge system should be 

incorporated in the component of Ancestral 

Domain Sustainable Development Plans; 

NCIP should focus on human rights and set up 

human rights centers in all the seven ethnographic 

regions with indigenous peoples experts; 

43


Economic Development: 

Instead of implementing programmes through 

Department of Agrarian Reforms and National 

Anti-Poverty Commission, the NCIP should 

directly implement a development plan under 

the following programme- 

(i) Environment — 

Domains 

Preserving Ancestral 

(ii) Governance and Political Integration — 

Philippines Autonomous Regions 

(iii) Poverty Alleviation — Income generation 

schemes 

(iv) Education – Including the programme to 

impart IP studies and knowledge system 

in colleges and universities 

Staffing and accountability: 

The NCIP should develop mechanisms for 

accountability of its staff; 

The NCIP should establish monitoring 

mechanisms — first, to monitor and evaluate the 

land titles, CADT titles; Second, to monitor the 

problems faced by the Indigenous Peoples; and 

Third, the management of Ancestral Domains 

through establishment of the Provincial 

Consultative Bodies; and NCIP has been 

requested to hold nation-wide debate on the 

Regional Legislative Assembly Resolution No. 

269 of the regional legislative assembly and 

study for implementation of the IPRA keeping 

in mind the issue of jurisdiction under the RLA 

269. 

44 AITPN


Annexure – I 

S. No. 1728 

H. No. 9125 

Republic of the Philippines 

Congress of the Philippines 

Metro Manila 

Tenth Congress 

Third Regular Session 

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday 

the twenty-eighth day of July, nineteen hundred 

and ninety-seven 

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371 

AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT 

AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF 

INDIGENOUS 

CULTURAL 

COMMUNITIES/ 

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, CREATING A 

NATIONAL 

COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, 

ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING 

MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING 

FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House 

of Representatives of the Philippines in 

Congress 

assembled: 

CHAPTER I 

General Provisions 

SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be 

known as "The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act 

of 1997". 

SEC. 2. Declaration of State Policies. - The State 

shall recognize and promote all the rights of 

Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous 

AITPN 

Peoples (ICCs/IPs) hereunder enumerated within 

the framework of the Constitution: 

a) The State shall recognize and promote the 

rights of ICCs/IPs within the framework of 

national unity and development; 

b) The State shall protect the rights of ICCs/ 

IPs to their ancestral domains to ensure their 

economic, social and cultural well being 

and shall recognize the applicability of 

customary laws governing property rights 

or relations in determining the ownership 

and extent of ancestral domain; 

c) The State shall recognize, respect and 

protect the rights of ICCs/ IPs to preserve 

and develop their cultures, traditions and 

institutions. It shall consider these rights 

in the formulation of national laws and 

policies; 

d) The State shall guarantee that members 

of the ICCs/IPs regardless of sex, shall 

equally enjoy the full measure of Human 

rights and freedoms without distinction or 

discrimination; 

e) The State shall take measures, with the 

participation of the ICCs/ IPs concerned, 

to protect their rights and guarantee 

respect for their cultural integrity, and 

to ensure that members of the ICCs/IPs 

benefit on an equal footing from the rights 

and opportunities which national laws and 

regulations grant to other members of the 

population; and 

f) The State recognizes its obligations 

to respond to the strong expression of 

the ICCs/IPs for cultural integrity by 

assuring maximum ICC/IP participation 

in the direction of education, health, 

as well as other services of ICCs/lPs, 

in order to render such services more 

45


responsive to the needs and desires of 

these communities. Towards these ends, 

the State shall institute and establish the 

necessary mechanisms to enforce and 

guarantee the realization of these rights, 

taking into consideration their customs, 

traditions, values, beliefs interests and 

institutions, and to adopt and implement 

measures to protect their rights to their 


CHAPTER II 

DEFINITION OF TERMS 

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of 

this Act, the following terms shall mean: 

a) Ancestral Domains - Subject to Section 

56 hereof, 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 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, 

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 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; 

b) Ancestral Lands - Subject to Section 56 

hereof, 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; 

c) Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title - 

refers to a title formally recognizing the 

rights of possession and ownership of ICCs/ 

IPs over their ancestral domains identified 

and delineated in accordance with this 

law; 

d) Certificate of Ancestral Lands Title - refers 

to a title formally recognizing the rights of 

ICCs/IPs over their ancestral lands; 

e) Communal Claims - refer to claims on land, 

resources and rights thereon; belonging 

to the whole community within a defined 

territory; 

f) Customary Laws - refer to a body of written 

and/or unwritten rules, usages, customs 

and practices traditionally and continually 

recognized, accepted and observed by 

respective ICCs/IPs; 

g) Free and Prior Informed Consent - as used 

in this Act shall mean the consensus of 

all members of the ICCs/IPs to be 

determined in accordance with their 

respective customary laws and practices, 

free from any external manipulation, 

interference coercion, and obtained after 

fully disclosing the intent and scope of 

the activity, in a language and process 

understandable to the community; 

46 AITPN


h) Indigenous Cultural Communities/ 

Indigenous Peoples - refer to a group of 

people or homogenous societies identified 

by self-ascription and ascription by 

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, nonindigenous 

religions and cultures, became 

historically differentiated from the majority 

of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise 

include peoples who are regarded as 

indigenous on account of their 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 

ancestral domains; 

i) Indigenous Political Structures - refer to 

organizational and cultural leadership 

systems, institutions, relationships, 

patterns and processes for decision-making 

and participation, identified by ICCs/ 

IPs such as, but not limited to, Council 

of Elders, Council of Timuays, Bodong 

Holders, or any other tribunal or body 

of similar nature; j) Individual Claims - 

refer to claims on land and rights thereon 

which have been devolved to individuals, 

families and clans including, but not 

limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or 

paddies and tree lots; 

k) National Commission on Indigenous 

Peoples (NCIP) - refers to the office created 

under his Act, which shall be under the 

AITPN 

Office of the President, and which shall be 

the primary government agency responsible 

for the formulation and implementation of 

policies, plans and programs to recognize, 

protect and promote the rights of ICCs/ 

IPs; 

l) Native Title - 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; 

m) Nongovernment Organization - refers to a 

private, nonprofit voluntary organization 

that has been organized primarily for the 

delivery of various services to the ICCs/ 

IPs and has an established track record 

for effectiveness and acceptability in the 

community where it serves; 

n) People's Organization - refers to a private, 

nonprofit voluntary organization of 

members of an ICC/IP which is accepted 

as representative of such ICCs/IPs; 

o) Sustainable Traditional Resource Rights - 

refer to the rights of ICCs/IPs to sustainably 

use, manage, protect and conserve a) land, 

air, water, and minerals; b) plants, animals 

and other organisms; c) collecting, fishing 

and hunting grounds; d) sacred sites; and 

e) other areas of economic, ceremonial and 

aesthetic value in accordance with their 

indigenous knowledge, beliefs, systems 

and practices; and 

p) Time Immemorial - refers to a period of time 

when as far back as memory can go, certain 

ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied, 

possessed in the concept of owner, and 

utilized a defined territory devolved to them, 

by operation of customary law or inherited 

from their ancestors, in accordance with 

their customs and traditions. 

47


CHAPTER III 

RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL DOMAINS 

SEC. 4. Concept of Ancestral Lands/Domains. 

- Ancestral lands/ domains shall include such 

concepts of territories which cover not only the 

physical environment but the total environment 

including the spiritual and cultural bonds to 

the areas which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy 

and use and to which they have claims of 

ownership. 

SEC. 5. Indigenous Concept of Ownership. - 

Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the 

view that ancestral domains and all resources 

found therein shall serve as the material bases 

of their cultural integrity. The indigenous 

concept of ownership generally holds that 

ancestral domains are the ICC's/IP's private 

but community property which belongs to 

all generations and therefore cannot be sold, 

disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers 

sustainable traditional resource rights. 

SEC. 6. Composition of Ancestral Lands/ 

Domains. - Ancestral lands and domains shall 

consist of all areas generally belonging to ICCs/ 

IPs as referred under Sec. 3, items (a) and (b) 

of this Act. 

SEC. 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains. - The 

rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs 

to their ancestral domains shall be recognized 

and protected. Such rights shall include: 

a) Right of Ownership - The right to claim 

ownership over lands, bodies of water 

traditionally and actually occupied by 

ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting 

and fishing grounds, and all improvements 

made by them at any time within the 

domains; 

b) Right to Develop Lands and Natural 

Resources. - Subject to Section 56 hereof, 

right to develop, control and use lands 

and territories traditionally occupied, 

owned, or used; to manage and conserve 

natural resources within the territories 

and uphold the responsibilities for future 

generations; to benefit and share the 

profits from allocation and utilization of 

the natural resources found therein; the 

right to negotiate the terms and conditions 

for the exploration of natural resources 

in the areas for the purpose of ensuring 

ecological, environmental protection and 

the conservation measures, pursuant to 

national and customary laws; the right to 

an informed and intelligent participation in 

the formulation and implementation of any 

project, government or private, that will 

affect or impact upon the ancestral domains 

and to receive just and fair compensation 

for any damages which they may sustain 

as a result of the project; and the right to 

effective measures by the government to 

prevent any interference with, alienation 

and encroachment upon these rights; 

c) Right to Stay in the Territories. - The 

right to stay in the territory and not to 

be removed therefrom. No ICCs/IPs 

will be relocated without their free and 

prior informed consent, nor through any 

means other than eminent domain. Where 

relocation is considered necessary as an 

exceptional measure, such relocation 

shall take place only with the free and 

prior informed consent of the ICCs/IPs 

concerned and whenever possible, they 

shall be guaranteed the right to return to 

their ancestral domains, as soon as the 

grounds for relocation cease to exist. When 

such return is not possible, as determined 

by agreement or through appropriate 

procedures, ICCs/IPs shall be provided in 

all possible cases with lands of quality and 

legal status at least equal to that of the land 

previously occupied by them, suitable to 

provide for their present needs and future 

development. Persons thus relocated shall 

likewise be fully compensated for any 

resulting loss or injury; 

d) Right in Case of Displacement. - In case 

displacement occurs as a result of natural 

catastrophes, the State shall endeavor to 

resettle the displaced ICCs/IPs in suitable 

48 AITPN


AITPN 

areas where they can have temporary 

life support systems: Provided, That the 

displaced ICCs/IPs shall have the right 

to return to their abandoned lands until 

such time that the normalcy and safety of 

such lands shall be determined: Provided, 

further, That should their ancestral domain 

cease to exist and normalcy and safety of 

the previous settlements are not possible, 

displaced ICCs/IPs shall enjoy security of 

tenure over lands to which they have been 

resettled: Provided furthermore, That basic 

services and livelihood shall be provided 

to them to ensure that their needs are 

adequately addressed; 

e) Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants. - Right 

to regulate the entry of migrant settlers and 

organizations into the domains; 

f) Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water. - For 

this purpose, the ICCs/IPs shall have access 

to integrated systems for the management 

of their inland waters and air space; 

g) Right to Claim Parts of Reservations 

-The right to claim parts of the ancestral 

domains which have been reserved for 

various purposes, except those reserved and 

intended for common and public welfare 

and service; and 

h) Right to Resolve Conflict. - Right to 

resolve land conflicts in accordance with 

customary laws of the area where the land 

is located, and only in default thereof shall 

the complaints be submitted to amicable 

settlement and to the Courts of Justice 

whenever necessary. 

SEC. 8. Rights to Ancestral Lands. - The right 

of ownership and possession of the ICCs /IPs 

to their ancestral lands shall be recognized and 

protected. 

a) Right to transfer land/property. - Such 

right shall include the right to transfer land 

or property rights to/among members of 

the same ICCs/IPs, subject to customary 

laws and traditions of the community 

concerned. 

b) Right to Redemption. - In cases where it 

is shown that the transfer of land/property 

rights by virtue of any agreement or devise, 

to a nonmember of the concerned ICCs/IPs 

is tainted by the vitiated consent of the ICCs/ 

IPs, or is transferred for an unconscionable 

consideration or price, the transferor ICC/ 

IP shall have the right to redeem the same 

within a period not exceeding fifteen (15) 

years from the date of transfer. 

SEC. 9. Responsibilities of ICCs/IPs to 

their`4ncestral Domains. -ICCs/IPs occupying 

a duly certified ancestral domain shall have the 

following responsibilities: 

a) Maintain Ecological Balance. - To preserve, 

restore, and maintain a balanced ecology 

in the ancestral domain by protecting the 

flora and fauna, watershed areas, and other 

reserves; 

b) Restore Denuded Areas. - To actively 

initiate, undertake and participate in the 

reforestation of denuded areas and other 

development programs and projects subject 

to just and reasonable remuneration; and 

c) Observe Laws. - To observe and comply 

with the provisions of this Act and the 

rules and regulations for its effective 

implementation. 

SEC. 10. Unauthorized and Unlawful Intrusion. 

- Unauthorized end unlawful intrusion upon, or 

use of any portion of the ancestral domain, or any 

violation of the rights herein before enumerated, 

shall be punishable under this law. Furthermore, 

the Government shall take measures to prevent 

non-ICCs/IPs from taking advantage of the 

ICCs/IPs customs or lack of understanding of 

laws to secure ownership, possession of land 

belonging to said ICCs/IPs. 

SEC. 11. Recognition of Ancestral Domain 

Rights. - The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral 

49


domains by virtue of Native Title shall be 

recognized and respected. Formal recognition, 

when solicited by ICCs/ IPs concerned, shall be 

embodied in a Certificate of Ancestral Domain 

Title (CADT), which shall recognize the title 

of the concerned ICCs/IPs over the territories 

identified and delineated. 

SEC. 12. Option to Secure Certificate of Title 

Under Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, 

or the Land Registration Act 496. - Individual 

members of cultural communities, with respect 

to their individually-owned ancestral lands who, 

by themselves or through their predecessors-ininterest, 

have been in continuous possession and 

occupation of the same in the concept of owner 

since time immemorial or for a period of not less 

than thirty (30) years immediately preceding 

the approval of this Act and uncontested by the 

members of the same ICCs/ IPs shall have the 

option to secure title to their ancestral lands 

under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 

141, as amended, or the Land Registration 

Act 496. For this purpose, said individuallyowned 

ancestral lands, which are agricultural 

in character and actually used for agricultural, 

residential, pasture, and tree farming purposes, 

including those with a slope of eighteen percent 

(18%) or more, are hereby classified as alienable 

and disposable agricultural lands. The option 

granted under this section shall be exercised 

within twenty (20) years from the approval of 

this Act. 

CHAPTER IV: 

RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNANCE 

AND EMPOWERMENT 

SEC. 13. Self-Governance. - The State 

recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to 

self-governance and self-determination and 

respects the integrity of their values, practices 

and institutions. Consequently, the State shall 

guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely 

pursue their economic, social and cultural 

development. 

SEC. 14. Support for Autonomous Regions. 

- The State shall continue to strengthen and 

support the autonomous regions created under 

the Constitution as they may require or need. 

The State shall likewise encourage other ICCs/ 

IPs not included or outside Muslim Mindanao 

and the Cordilleras to use the form and content 

of their ways of life as may be compatible 

with the fundamental rights defined in the 

Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines 

and other internationally recognized human 

rights. 

SEC. 15. Justice System, Conflict Resolution 

Institutions, and Peace Building Processes. - 

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. 

SEC. 16. Right to Participate in Decision- 

Making - ICCs/IPs have the right to participate 

fully, if they so choose, at all levels of decision 

making in matters which may affect their 

rights, lives and destinies through procedures 

determined by them as well as to maintain 

and develop their own indigenous political 

structures. Consequently, the State shall ensure 

that the ICCs/IPs shall be given mandatory 

representation in policy-making bodies and 

other local legislative councils. 

SEC. 17. Right to Determine and Decide 

Priorities for Development. - The ICCs/IPs shall 

have the right to determine and decide their own 

priorities for development affecting their lives, 

beliefs, institutions, spiritual well-being, and 

the lands they own, occupy or use. They shall 

participate in the formulation, implementation 

and evaluation of policies, plans and programs 

for national, regional and local development 

which may directly affect them. 

50 AITPN


SEC. 18. Tribal Barangays. - The ICCs/IPs living 

in contiguous areas or communities where they 

form the predominant population but which 

are located in municipalities, provinces or 

cities where they do not constitute the majority 

of the population, may form or constitute a 

separate barangay in accordance with the Local 

Government Code on the creation of tribal 

barangays. 

SEC. 19. Role of Peoples Organizations. - The 

State shall recognize and respect the role of 

independent ICCs/IPs organizations to enable the 

ICCs/IPs to pursue and protect their legitimate 

and collective interests and aspirations through 

peaceful and lawful means. 

SEC. 20. Means for Development/Empowerment 

of ICCs/lPs. - The Government shall establish the 

means for the full development / empowerment 

of the ICCs/IPs own institutions and initiatives 

and, where necessary, provide the resources 

needed therefor. 

CHAPTER V: 

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

SEC. 21. Equal Protection and Nondiscrimination 

of ICCs/lPs. -Consistent with the 

equal protection clause of the Constitution of 

the Republic of the Philippines, the Charter of 

the United Nations, the Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights including the Convention 

on the Elimination of Discrimination Against 

Women and International Human Rights Law, 

the State shall, with due recognition of their 

distinct characteristics and identity accord to the 

members of the ICCs/IPs the rights, protections 

and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the citizenry. 

It shall extend to them the same employment 

rights, opportunities, basic services, educational 

and other rights and privileges available to 

every member of the society. Accordingly, the 

State shall likewise ensure that the employment 

of any form of force or coercion against ICCs/ 

IPs shall be dealt with by law. 

The State shall ensure that the fundamental 

human rights and freedoms as enshrined in 

AITPN 

the Constitution and relevant international 

instruments are guaranteed also to indigenous 

women. Towards this end, no provision in 

this Act shall be interpreted so as to result in 

the diminution of rights and privileges already 

recognized and accorded to women under 

existing laws of general application. 

SEC. 22. Rights during Armed Conflict. - 

ICCs/IPs have the right to special protection 

and security in periods of armed conflict. The 

State shall observe international standards, in 

particular the Fourth Geneva Convention of 

1949, for the protection of civilian populations 

in circumstances of emergency and armed 

conflict, and shall not recruit members of the 

ICCs/IPs against their will into the armed forces, 

and in particular, for use against other ICCs/ 

IPs; nor recruit children of ICCs/ IPs into the 

armed forces under any circumstance; nor force 

indigenous individuals to abandon their lands, 

territories and means of subsistence, or relocate 

them in special centers for military purposes 

under any discriminatory condition. 

SEC. 23. Freedom from Discrimination and 

Right to Equal Opportunity and Treatment. – 

It shall be the right of the ICCs/IPs to be free 

from any form of discrimination, with respect 

to recruitment and conditions of employment, 

such that they may enjoy equal opportunities 

for admission to employment, medical and 

social assistance, safety as well as other 

occupationally -related benefits, informed of 

their rights under existing labor legislation 

and of means available to them for redress, not 

subject to any coercive recruitment systems, 

including bonded labor and other forms of debt 

servitude; and equal treatment in employment 

for men and women, including the protection 

from sexual harassment. Towards this end, the 

State shall, within the framework of national 

laws and regulations, and in cooperation with 

the ICCs/IPs concerned, adopt special measures 

to ensure the effective protection with regard to 

the recruitment and conditions of employment of 

persons belonging to these communities, to the 

extent that they are not effectively protected by 

51


laws applicable to workers in general. ICCs/IPs 

shall have the right to association and freedom 

for all trade union activities and the right to 

conclude collective bargaining agreements with 

employers' organizations. They shall likewise 

have the right not to be subject to working 

conditions hazardous to their health, particularly 

through exposure to pesticides and other toxic 

substances. 

SEC. 24. Unlawful Acts Pertaining to 

Employment. - It shall be unlawful for any 

person: 

a) To discriminate against any ICC/IP with 

respect to the terms and conditions of 

employment on account of their descent. 

Equal remuneration shall be paid to ICC/ 

IP and non-ICC/IP for work of equal value; 

and 

b) To deny any ICC/IP employee any right or 

benefit herein provided for or to discharge 

them for the purpose of preventing them 

from enjoying any of the rights or benefits 

provided under this Act. 

SEC. 25. Basic Services. - The ICCs/IPs 

have the right to special measures for the 

immediate,effective and continuing improvement 

of their economic and social conditions, 

including in the areas of employment, vocational 

training and retraining, housing, sanitation, 

health and social security. Particular attention 

shall be paid to the rights and special needs 

of indigenous women, elderly, youth, children 

and differently-abled persons. Accordingly, the 

State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to 

government's basic services which shall include, 

but not limited to, water and electrical facilities, 

education, health and infrastructure. 

SEC. 26. Women. - ICC/IP women shall enjoy 

equal rights and opportunities with men, as 

regards the social, economic, political and 

cultural spheres of life. The participation 

of indigenous women in He decisionmaking 

process in all levels, as well as in the 

development of society, shall be given due 

respect and recognition.The State shall provide 

full access to education, maternal and child 

care, health and nutrition,and housing services 

to indigenous women. Vocational, technical, 

professional and other forms of training shall 

be provided to enable these women to fully 

participate in all aspects of social life. As far as 

possible, the State shall ensure that indigenous 

women have access to all services in their own 

languages. 

SEC. 27. Children and Youth. - The State 

shall recognize the vital role of the children 

and youth of ICCs/IPs in nation-building 

and shall promote and protect their physical, 

moral,spiritual,intellectual end social wellbeing.Towards 

this end, the State shall support 

all government programs intended for the 

development and rearing of the children and 

youth of ICCs/IPs for civic efficiency and 

establish such mechanisms as may be necessary 

for the protection of the rights of the indigenous 

children and youth. 

SEC. 28. Integrated System of Education. - 

The State shall, through the NCIP, provide a 

complete, adequate and integrated system of 

education, relevant to the needs of the children 

and young people of ICCs/ IPs. 

CHAPTER VI: 

CULTURAL INTEGRITY 

SEC. 29. Protection of Indigenous Culture, 

Traditions and Institutions. - The State shall 

respect, recognize and protect the right of 

ICCs/IPs to preserve and protect their culture, 

traditions and institutions. It shall consider 

these rights in the formulation and application 

of national plans and policies. 

SEC. 30. Educational Systems. - The State 

shall provide equal access to various cultural 

opportunities to the ICCs/IPs through the 

educational system, public or private cultural 

entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives 

without prejudice to their right to establish and 

52 AITPN


control their educational systems and institutions 

by providing education in their own language, in 

a manner appropriate to their cultural methods 

of teaching and learning.Indigenous children/ 

youth shall have the right to all levels and forms 

of education of the State. 

SEC. 31. Recognition of Cultural Diversity. 

- The State shall endeavor to have the dignity 

and diversity of the cultures, traditions, 

histories and aspirations of the ICCs/ 

IPs appropriately reflected in all forms of 

education, public information and culturaleducational 

exchange. Consequently, the State 

shall take effective measures, in consultation 

with ICCs/IPs concerned, to eliminate prejudice 

and discrimination and to promote tolerance, 

understanding and good relations among ICCs/ 

IPs and all segments of society. Furthermore, 

the Government shall take effective measures 

to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect 

indigenous cultural diversity. The State shall 

likewise ensure the participation of appropriate 

indigenous leaders in schools, communities 

and international cooperative undertakings like 

festivals, conferences, seminars and workshops 

to promote and enhance their distinctive heritage 

and values. 

SEC. 32. Community Intellectual Rights. - 

ICCs/IPs have the right to practice and revitalize 

their own cultural traditions and customs. The 

State shall presence, 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 and prior 

informed consent or in violation of their laws, 

traditions and customs. 

SEC. 33. Rights to Religious, Cultural Sites 

and Ceremonies. -ICCs/IPs shall have the 

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 right to use and control of ceremonial 

objects; and, the right to the repatriation of 

human remains. Accordingly, the State shall 

AITPN 

take effective measures, in cooperation with the 

ICCs/IPs concerned to ensure that indigenous 

sacred places, including burial sites, be 

preserved, respected and protected. To achieve 

this purpose, it shall be unlawful to: 

a) Explore, excavate or make diggings on 

archeological sites of the ICCs/IPs for the 

purpose of obtaining materials of cultural 

values without the free and prior informed 

consent of the community concerned; and 

b) Deface, remove or otherwise destroy 

artifacts which are of great importance to 

the ICCs/IPs for the preservation of their 

cultural heritage. 

SEC. 34. Right to Indigenous Knowledge 

Systems and Practices and to Develop own 

Sciences and Technologies. - ICCs/IPs are 

entitled to the recognition of the full ownership 

and control end protection of their cultural and 

intellectual rights. They shall have the right 

to special measures to control, develop and 

protect their sciences, technologies and cultural 

manifestations, including human and other 

genetic resources, seeds, including derivatives 

of these resources, traditional medicines and 

hearth practices, vital medicinal plants, animals 

and minerals, indigenous knowledge systems 

and practices, knowledge of the properties 

of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literature, 

designs, and visual and performing arts. 

SEC. 35. Access to Biological and Genetic 

Resources. - Access to biological and genetic 

resources and to indigenous knowledge related 

to the conservation, utilization and enhancement 

of these resources, shall be allowed within 

ancestral lands and domains of the ICCs/IPs 

only with a free and prior informed consent of 

such communities, obtained in accordance with 

customary laws of the concerned community. 

SEC. 36. Sustainable Agro-Technical 

Development. - The State shall recognize 

the right of ICCs/IPs to a sustainable agrotechnological 

development and shall formulate 

53


and implement programs of action for its 

effective implementation. The State shall 

likewise promote the big-genetic and resource 

management systems among the ICCs/IPs shall 

encourage cooperation among government 

agencies to ensure the successful sustainable 

development of ICCs/IPs. 

SEC. 37. Funds for Archeological and 

Historical Sites. - The ICCs/ IPs shall have the 

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. 

CHAPTER VII: 

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP) 

SEC. 38. National Commission on Indigenous 

Cultural Communities/lndigenous Peoples 

(NCIP). - To carry out the policies herein 

set forth, there shall be created the National 

Commission on ICCs/ IPs (NCIP), which shall 

be the primary government agency responsible 

for the formulation and implementation of 

policies, plans and programs to promote and 

protect the rights and well-being of the ICCs/IPs 

and the recognition of their ancestral domains 

as well as their rights thereto. 

SEC. 39. Mandate. - The NCIP shall protect and 

promote the interest and well-being of the ICCs/ 

IPs with due regard to their beliefs, customs, 

traditions and institutions. 

SEC. 40. Composition. - The NCIP shall be 

an independent agency under the Office of 

the President and shall be composed of seven 

(7) Commissioners belonging to ICCs/IPs, 

one (1) of whom shall be the Chairperson. 

The Commissioners shall be appointed by 

the President of the Philippines from a list of 

recommenders submitted by authentic ICCs/ 

IPs: Provided, That the seven (7) Commissioners 

shall be appointed specifically from each of the 

following ethnographic areas: Region I and 

the Cordilleras, Region II, the rest of Luzon, 

Island Groups including Mindoro, Palawan, 

Romblon, Panay and the rest of the Visayas; 

Northern and Western Mindanao; Southern 

and Eastern Mindanao; and Central Mindanao: 

Provided, That at least two (2) of the seven(7) 

Commissioners shall be women. 

SEC. 41. Qualifications, Tenure, Compensation. 

- The Chairperson and the six (6) Commissioners 

must tee natural born Filipino citizens, bonafide 

members of ICCs/IPs as certified by his/her 

tribe, experienced in ethnic affairs and who 

have worked for at least ten (10) years with 

an ICC/IP community and/or any government 

agency involved in ICC/IP, at least 35 years of 

age at the time of appointment, and must be of 

proven honesty and integrity: Provided, That at 

least two (2) of the seven (7) Commissioners 

shall be members of the Philippine Bar: Provided, 

farther, the members of the NCIP shall hold 

office for a period of three (3) years, and may 

be subject to re-appointment for another term: 

Provided, furthermore, That no person shall 

serve for more than two (2) terms. Appointment 

to any vacancy shall only be for the unexpired 

term of the predecessor and in no case shall 

a member be appointed or designated in a 

temporary or acting capacity: Provided, finally, 

That the Chairperson and the Commissioners 

shall be entitled to compensation m accordance 

with the Salary Standardization Law. 

SEC. 42. Removal from office. - Any member 

of the NCIP may be removed from office by 

the President, on his own initiative or upon 

recommendation by any indigenous community, 

before the expiration of his term for cause and 

after complying with due process requirement 

of law. 

SEC. 43. Appointment of Commissioners. 

- The President shall appoint the seven (7) 

Commissioners of the NCIP within ninety (90) 

days from the effectivity of this Act. 

54 AITPN


SEC. 44. Powers and Functions. - To accomplish 

its mandate, the NCIP shall have the following 

powers, jurisdiction and function: 

a) To serve as the primary government 

agency through which ICCs/IPs can seek 

government assistance and as the medium, 

through which such assistance may be 

extended; 

b) To review and assess the conditions of 

ICCs/IPs including existing laws and 

policies pertinent thereto and to propose 

relevant laws and policies to address their 

role in national development; 

c) To formulate and implement policies, plans, 

programs and projects for the economic, 

social and cultural development of the 

ICCs/IPs and to monitor the implementation 

thereof; 

d) To request and engage the services and 

support of experts from other agencies 

of government or employ private experts 

and consultants as may be required in the 

pursuit of its objectives; 

e) To issue certificate of ancestral land/domain 

title; 

f) Subject to existing laws, to enter into 

contracts, agreements, or arrangement, 

with government or private agencies or 

entities as may be necessary to attain the 

objectives of this Act, and subject to the 

approval of the President, to obtain loans 

from government lending institutions and 

other lending institutions to finance its 

programs; 

g) To negotiate for funds and to accept 

grants, donations, gifts and/or properties in 

whatever form and from whatever source, 

local and international, subject to the 

approval of the President of the Philippines, 

for the benefit of ICCs/IPs and administer 

the same in accordance with the terms 

thereof; or in the absence of any condition, 

in such manner consistent with the interest 

of ICCs/IPs as well as existing laws; 

h) To coordinate development programs 

and projects for the advancement of 

the ICCs/IPs and to oversee the proper 


i) To convene periodic conventions or 

assemblies of IPs to review, assess as well 

as propose policies or plans; 

j) To advise the President of the Philippines 

on all matters relating to the ICCs/IPs and 

to submit within sixty (60) days after the 

close of each calendar year, a report of its 

operations and achievements; 

k) To submit to Congress appropriate 

legislative proposals intended to carry out 

the policies under this Act; 

1) To prepare and submit the appropriate 

budget to the Office of the President; 

m) To issue appropriate certification as a precondition 

to the grant of permit, lease, 

grant, or any other similar authority for the 

disposition, utilization, management and 

appropriation by any private individual, 

corporate entity or any government agency, 

corporation or subdivision thereof on any 

part or portion of the ancestral domain 

taking into consideration the consensus 

approval of the ICCs/IPs concerned; 

n) To decide all appeals from the decisions 

and acts of all the various offices within the 

Commission; 

o) To promulgate the necessary rules and 

regulations for the implementation of this 

Act; 

p) To exercise such other powers and functions 

as may be directed by the President of the 

Republic of the Philippines; and 

q) To represent the Philippine ICCs/IPs in all 

international conferences and conventions 

AITPN 

55


dealing with indigenous peoples and other 

related concerns. 

SEC. 45. Accessibility and Transparency. - 

Subject to such limitations as may be provided 

by law or by rules and regulations promulgated 

pursuant thereto, all official records, documents 

and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions 

or decisions, as well as research data used as 

basis for policy development of the Commission 

shall be made accessible to the public. 

SEC. 46. Offices within the NCIP. - The NCIP 

shall have the following offices which shall 

be responsible for the implementation of the 

policies hereinafter provided: 

a) Ancestral Domains Office - The Ancestral 

Domain Office shall be responsible for the 

identification, delineation and recognition 

of ancestral lands/domains. It shall also 

be responsible for the management of 

ancestral lands/domains in accordance 

with a master plan as well as the 

implementation of the ancestral domain 

rights of the ICCs/IPs as provided in 

Chapter III of this Act. It shall also issue, 

upon the free and prior informed consent 

of the ICCs/IPs concerned, certification 

prior to the grant of any license, lease 

or permit for the exploitation of natural 

resources affecting the interests of ICCs/ 

IPs or their ancestral domains and to assist 

the ICCs/IPs in protecting the territorial 

integrity of all ancestral domains. It shall 

likewise perform such other functions as 

the Commission may deem appropriate 

and necessary; 

b) Office on Policy, Planning and Research 

- The Of lice on Policy, Planning and 

Research shall be responsible for the 

formulation of appropriate policies and 

programs for ICCs/IPs such as, but not 

limited to, the development of a Five-Year 

Master Plan for the lCCs/IPs. Such plan 

shall undergo a process such that every 

five years, the Commission shall endeavor 

to assess the plan and make ramifications 

in accordance with the changing 

situations. The Office shall also undertake 

the documentation of customary law and 

shall establish and maintain a Research 

Center that would serve as a depository of 

ethnographic information for monitoring, 

evaluation and policy formulation. It 

shall assist the legislative branch of the 

national government in the formulation 

of appropriate legislation benefiting ICCs/ 

IPs; 

c) Office of Education, Culture and Health 

- The Office on Culture, Education 

and Health shall be responsible for the 

effective implementation of the education, 

cultural and rented rights as provided 

in this Act. It shall assist, promote and 

support community schools, both formal 

and non-formal, for the benefit of the local 

indigenous community, especially in areas 

where existing educational facilities are not 

accessible to members of the indigenous 

group. It shall administer all scholarship 

programs and other educational rights 

intended for ICC/IP beneficiaries in 

coordination with the Department of 

Education, Culture and Sports and the 

Commission on Higher Education. It shall 

undertake, within the limits of available 

appropriation, a special program which 

includes language and vocational training, 

public health and family assistance 

program and rented subjects. It shall also 

identify ICCs/IPs with potential training 

in the health profession and encourage 

and assist them to enroll in schools of 

medicine, nursing, physical therapy and 

other allied courses pertaining to the 

health profession. Towards this end, the 

NCIP shall deploy a representative in each 

of the said of offices personally perform 

the foregoing task and who shall receive 

complaints from the ICCs/IPs and compel 

action from appropriate agency. It shall 

also monitor the activities of the National 

56 AITPN


Museum and other similar government 

agencies generally intended to manage 

and presence historical and archeological 

artifacts of the ICCs/IPs and shall be 

responsible for the implementation of 

such other functions as the NCIP may 

deem appropriate and necessary; 

d) Office on Socio-Economic Services and 

Special Concerns. - The Office on Socio- 

Economic Services and Special Concerns 

shall serve as the Office through which 

the NCIP shall coordinate with pertinent 

government agencies specially charged 

with the implementation of various basic 

socio-economic services, policies, plans 

and programs affecting the ICCs/IPs to 

ensure that the same are properly and 

directly enjoyed by them. It shall also 

be responsible for such other functions 

as the NCIP may deem appropriate and 

necessary; 

e) Office of Empowerment and Human Rights 

- The Office of Empowerment and Human 

Rights shall ensure that indigenous 

sociopolitical, cultural and economic 

rights are respected and recognized. It shall 

ensure that capacity building mechanisms 

are instituted and ICCs/IPs are afforded 

every opportunity, if they so choose, to 

participate in all levels of decision-making. 

It shall likewise ensure that the basic 

human rights, and such other rights as the 

NCIP may determine, subject to existing 

laws, rules and regulations, are protected 

and promoted; 

f) Administrative Office - The Administrative 

Office shall provide the NCIP with 

economical, efficient and effective services 

pertaining to personnel, finance, records, 

equipment, security, supplies and related 

services. It shall also administer the 

Ancestral Domains Fund; and 

g) Legal Affairs Office- There shall be a 

Legal Affairs Office which shall advice the 

NCIP on all legal matters concerning ICCs/ 

IPs and which shall be responsible for 

providing ICCs/IPs with legal assistance 

in litigation involving community interest. 

It shall conduct preliminary investigation 

on the basis of complaints filed by the 

ICCs/IPs against a natural or juridical 

person believed to have violated ICCs/UPs 

rights. On the basis of its findings, it shall 

initiate the filing of appropriate legal or 

administrative action to the NCIP. 

SEC. 47. Other Offices. - The NCIP shall have 

the power to create additional of offices it 

may deem necessary subject to existing rules 

and regulations. 

SEC. 48. Regional and Field Offices. - Existing 

regional and field offices shall remain to 

function under the strengthened organizational 

structure of the NCIP. Other field offices shall 

be created wherever appropriate and the staffing 

pattern thereof shall be determined by the 

NCIP: Provided, That in provinces where 

there are ICCs/IPs but without field of offices, 

the NCIP shall establish field offices in said 

provinces. 

SEC. 49. (office of the Executive Director. - The 

NCIP shall create the Office of the Executive 

Director which shall serve as its secretariat. The 

office shall be headed by an Executive Director 

who shall be appointed by the President 

of the Republic of the Philippines upon 

recommendation of the NCIP on a permanent 

basis. The staffing pattern of the office shall 

be determined by the NCIP subject to existing 

rules and regulations. 

SEC. 50. Consultative Body. - A body 

consisting of the traditional leaders, elders and 

representatives from the women and youth 

sectors of the different ICCs/IPs shall be 

constituted by the NCIP from time to time to 

advise it on matters relating to the problems, 

aspirations and interests of the ICCs/IPs. 

AITPN 

57


CHAPTER VIII: 

DELINEATION AND RECOGNITION 

OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS 

SEC. 51. Delineation and Recognition of 

Ancestral Domains. -Self-delineation shall be 

he guiding principle in the identification and 

delineation of ancestral domains. As such, the 

ICCs/IPs concerned shall have a decisive role 

in all the activities pertinent thereto. The Sworn 

Statement of the Elders as to the scope of the 

territories and agreements/ pacts made with 

neighboring ICCs/IPs, if any, will be essential to 

the determination of these traditional territories. 

The Government shall take the necessary steps 

to identify lands which the ICCs/IPs concerned 

traditionally occupy and guarantee effective 

protection of their rights of ownership and 

possession thereto. Measures shall be taken 

in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of 

the ICCs/IPs concerned to land which may no 

longer be exclusively occupied by them, but 

to which they have traditionally had access 

for their subsistence and traditional activities, 

particularly of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic 

and/or shifting cultivators. 

SEC. 52. Delineation Process. - The 

identification and delineation of ancestral 

domains shall be done in accordance with the 

following procedures: 

a) Ancestral Domains Delineated Prior to 

this Act.- The provisions hereunder shall 

not apply to ancestral domains/lands 

already delineated according to DENR 

Administrative Order No. 2, series of 

1993, nor to ancestral lands and domains 

delineated under any other community/ 

ancestral domain program prior to the 

enactment of this law. ICCs/IPs whose 

ancestral lands/domains were officially 

delineated prior to the enactment of this 

law shall have the right to apply for the 

issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral 

Domain Title (CADT) over the area 

without going through the process outlined 

hereunder; 

b) Petition for Delineation. - The process of 

delineating a specific perimeter may be 

initiated by the NCIP with the consent of 

the ICC/IP concerned, or through a Petition 

for Delineation filed with the NCIP, by a 

majority of the members of the ICCs/IPs; 

c) Delineation Proper. - The official delineation 

of ancestral domain boundaries including 

census of all community members therein, 

shall be immediately undertaken by the 

Ancestral Domains Office upon filing of 

the application by the ICCs/IPs concerned. 

Delineation will be done in coordination 

with the community concerned and shall 

at all times include genuine involvement 

and participation by the members of the 

communities concerned; 

d) Proof Required. - Proof of Ancestral 

Domain Claims shall include the testimony 

of elders or community under oath, and 

other documents directly or indirectly 

attesting to the possession or occupation 

of the area since time immemorial by such 

ICCs/IPs in the concept of owners which 

shall be any one ( I ) of the following 

authentic documents: 

1) Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs 

customs and traditions; 

2) Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs 

political structure and institution; 

3) Pictures showing long term occupation 

such as those of old improvements, 

burial grounds, sacred places and old 

villages; 

4) Historical accounts, including 

pacts and agreements concerning 

boundaries entered into by the ICCs/ 

IPs concerned with other ICCs/lPs; 

5) Survey plans and sketch maps; 

6) Anthropological data; 

7) Genealogical surveys; 

8) Pictures and descriptive histories of 

traditional communal forests and 

hunting grounds; 

58 AITPN


9) Pictures and descriptive histories 

of traditional landmarks such as 

mountains, rivers, creeks, ridges, 

hills, terraces and the like; and 

10) Write-ups of names and places 

derived from the native dialect of the 

community. 

e) Preparation of Maps. - On the basis of 

such investigation and the findings of fact 

based thereon, the Ancestral Domains 

Office shall prepare a perimeter map, 

complete with technical descriptions, and 

a description of the natural features and 

landmarks embraced therein; 

f) Report of Investigation and Other 

Documents. - A complete copy of the 

preliminary census and a report of 

investigation, shall be prepared by the 

Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP; 

g) Notice and Publication. - A copy of 

each document, including a translation 

in the native language of the ICCs/IPs 

concerned shall be posted in a prominent 

place therein for at least fifteen ( 15) days. 

A copy of the document shall also be 

posted at the local, provincial and regional 

offices of the NCIP, and shall be published 

in a newspaper of general circulation once 

a week for two (2) consecutive weeks to 

allow other claimants to file opposition 

thereto within fifteen (15) days from date 

of such publication: Provided, That in 

areas where no such newspaper exists, 

broadcasting in a radio station will be a 

valid substitute: Provided, further, That 

mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if 

both newspaper and radio station are not 

available; 

h) Endorsement to NCIP. - Within fifteen 

(15) days from publication, and of the 

inspection process, the Ancestral Domains 

Office shall prepare a report to the NCIP 

endorsing a favorable action upon a 

claim that is deemed to have sufficient 

proof. However, if the proof is deemed 

insufficient, the Ancestral Domains Office 

shall require the submission of additional 

evidence: Provided, That the Ancestral 

Domains Office shall reject any claim 

that is deemed patently false or fraudulent 

after inspection and verification: Provided, 

further, That in case of rejection, the 

Ancestral Domains Office shall give the 

applicant due notice, copy furnished all 

concerned, containing the grounds for 

denial. The denial shall be appealable to 

the NCIP: Provided, furthermore, That in 

cases where there are conflicting claims 

among ICCs/IPs on the boundaries of 

ancestral domain claims, the Ancestral 

Domains Office shall cause the contending 

parties to meet and assist them in coming 

up with a preliminary resolution of the 

conflict, without prejudice to its full 

adjudication according to the section 

below. 

i) Turnover of Areas Within Ancestral 

Domains Managed by Other Government 

Agencies. - The Chairperson of the 

NCIP shall certify Blat the area covered 

is an ancestral domain. The secretaries 

of the Department of Agrarian Reform, 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, Department of the Interior and 

Local Government, and Department of 

Justice, the Commissioner of the National 

Development Corporation, and any other 

government agency claiming jurisdiction 

over the area shall be notified Thereof. 

Such notification shall terminate any 

legal basis for the jurisdiction previously 

claimed; 

j) Issuance of CADT. - ICCs/IPs whose 

ancestral domains have been officially 

delineated and determined by the NCIP 

shall be issued a CADT in the name of the 

community concerned, containing a list of 

all dose identified in the census; and 

k) Registration of CADTs. - The NCIP shall 

register issued certificates of ancestral 

domain titles and certificates of ancestral 

AITPN 

59


lands tides before She Register of Deeds in 

the place where the property is situated. 

SEC. 53. Identification, Delineation and 

Certification of Ancestral 

a) The allocation of lands within any ancestral 

domain to individual or indigenous 

corporate (family or clan) claimants 

shall be left to the ICCs/IPs concerned to 

decide in accordance with customs and 

traditions; 

b) Individual and indigenous corporate 

claimants of ancestral lands which are 

not within ancestral domains, may have 

their claims officially established by 

filing applications for the identification 

and delineation of their claims with the 

Ancestral Domains Office. An individual 

or recognized head of a family or clan may 

file such application in his behalf or in 

behalf of his family or clan, respectively; 

c) Proofs of such claims shall accompany 

the application form which shall include 

the testimony under oath of elders of the 

community and other documents directly 

or indirectly attesting to the possession 

or occupation of the areas since time 

immemorial by the individual or corporate 

claimants in the concept of owners which 

shall be any of the authentic documents 

enumerated under Sec. 52 (d) of this Act, 

including tax declarations and proofs of 

payment of taxes; 

d) The Ancestral Domains Office may 

require from each ancestral claimant the 

submission of such other documents, 

Sworn Statements and the like, which in 

its opinion,may shed light on the veracity 

of the contents of the application/claim; 

e) Upon receipt of the applications for 

delineation and recognition of ancestral 

land claims, the Ancestral Domains 

Office shall cause the publication of the 

application and a copy of each document 

submitted including a translation in 

the native language of the ICCs/IPs 

concerned in a prominent place therein 

for at least fifteen (15) days. A copy of 

the document shall also be posted at the 

local, provincial, and regional offices 

of the NCIP and shall be published in a 

newspaper of general circulation once a 

week for two (2) consecutive weeks to 

allow other claimants to file opposition 

thereto within fifteen (15) days from the 

date of such publication: Provided, That 

in areas where no such newspaper exists, 

broadcasting in a radio station will be a 

valid substitute: Provided, further, That 

mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if 

both newspapers and radio station are not 

available; 

f) Fifteen (15) days after such publication, 

the Ancestral Domains Office shall 

investigate and inspect each application, 

and if found to be meritorious, shall cause 

a parcellary survey of the area being 

claimed. The Ancestral Domains Office 

shall reject any claim that is deemed 

patently false or fraudulent after inspection 

and verification. In case of rejection, the 

Ancestral Domains Office shall give the 

applicant due notice, copy furnished all 

concerned, containing the grounds for 

denial. The denial shall be appealable to 

the NCIP. In case of conflicting claims 

among individual or indigenous corporate 

claimants, the Ancestral Domains Office 

shall cause the contending parties to 

meet and assist them in coming up with 

a preliminary resolution of the conflict, 

without prejudice to its full adjudication 

according to Sec. 62 of this Act. In all 

proceedings for the identification or 

delineation of the ancestral domains as 

herein provided, the Director of Lands 

shall represent the interest of the Republic 

of the Philippines; and 

g) The Ancestral Domains Office shall 

prepare and submit a report on each and 

every application surveyed and delineated 

to the NCIP, which shall, in turn, evaluate 

60 AITPN


AITPN 

the report submitted. If the NCIP finds 

such claim meritorious, it shall issue a 

certificate of ancestral land, declaring and 

certifying the claim of each individual or 

corporate (family or clan) claimant over 

ancestral lands. 

SEC. 54. Fraudulent Claims. - The Ancestral 

Domains Of lice may, upon written request 

from the ICCs/lPs, review existing claims 

which have been fraudulently acquired by any 

person or community. Any claim found to be 

fraudulently acquired by, and issued to, any 

person or community may be cancelled by the 

NCIP after due notice and hearing of all parties 

concerned. 

SEC. 55. Communal Rights. - Subject to 

Section 56 hereof, areas within the ancestral 

domains, whether delineated or not, shall be 

presumed to be communally held: Provided, 

That communal rights under this Act shall not 

be construed as co-ownership as provided in 

Republic Act. No. 386, otherwise known as the 

New Civil Code. 

SEC. 56. Existing Property Rights Regimes. 

- Property rights within the ancestral domains 

already existing and/or vested upon effectivity 

of this Act, shall be recognized and respected. 

SEC. 57. Natural Resources within Ancestral 

Domains. - The ICCs/ IPs shall have priority 

rights in the harvesting, extraction, development 

or exploitation of any natural resources within 

the ancestral domains. A non-member of the 

ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part 

in the development and utilization of the natural 

resources for a period of not exceeding twentyfive 

(25) years renewable for not more than 

twenty-five (25) years: Provided, That a formal 

and written agreement is entered into with the 

ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, 

pursuant to its own decision making process, 

has agreed to allow such operation: Provided, 

finally, That the NCIP may exercise visitorial 

powers and take appropriate action to safeguard 

the rights of the ICCs/IPs under the same 

contract. 

SEC. 58. Environmental Considerations. - 

Ancestral domains or portions thereof, which 

are found to be necessary for critical watersheds, 

mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, 

protected areas, forest cover, or reforestation 

as determined by appropriate agencies with the 

full participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned 

shall be maintained, managed and developed 

for such purposes. The ICCs/IPs concerned 

shall be given the responsibility to maintain, 

develop, protect and conserve such areas with 

the full and effective assistance of government 

agencies. Should the ICCs/IPs decide to transfer 

the responsibility over the areas, said decision 

must be made in writing. The consent of the 

ICCs/IPs should be arrived at in accordance 

with its customary laws without prejudice to 

the basic requirements of existing laws on free 

and prior informed consent: Provided, That the 

transfer shall be temporary and will ultimately 

revert to the ICCs/IPs in accordance with a 

program for technology transfer: Provided, 

further, That no ICCs/IPs shall be displaced 

or relocated for the purpose enumerated under 

this section without the written consent of the 

specific persons authorized to give consent. 

SEC. 59. Certification Precondition. - All 

departments and other governmental agencies 

shall henceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing, 

renewing, or granting any concession, license or 

lease, or entering into any production-sharing 

agreement, without prior certification from the 

NCIP that the area affected does not overlap with 

any ancestral domain. Such certification shall 

only be issued after a field-based investigation 

is conducted by the Ancestral Domains Office 

of the area concerned: Provided, That no 

certification shall be issued by the NCIP without 

the free and prior informed and written consent 

of ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, further, 

That no department, government agency or 

government-owned or – controlled corporation 

may issue new concession, license, lease, or 

production sharing agreement while there is 

a pending application for a CADT: Provided, 

finally, That the ICCs/IPs shall have the right 

to stop or suspend, in accordance with this Act, 

61


any project that has not satisfied the requirement 

of this consultation process. 

SEC. 60. Exemption from Taxes. - All lands 

certified to be ancestral domains shall be exempt 

from real property taxes, special levies, end other 

forms of exaction except such portion of the 

ancestral domains as are actually used for largescale 

agriculture, commercial forest plantation 

and residential purposes or upon titling by 

private persons: Provided, That all exactions 

shall be used to facilitate the development and 

improvement of the ancestral domains. 

SEC. 61. Temporary Requisition Powers. - 

Prior to the establishment of an institutional 

surveying capacity whereby it can effectively 

fulfill its mandate, but in no case beyond 

three (3) years after its creation, the NCIP is 

hereby authorized to request the Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 

survey teams as well as other equally capable 

private survey teams, through a Memorandum 

of Agreement (MOA), to delineate ancestral 

domain perimeters. The DENR Secretary shall 

accommodate any such request within one ( 

I ) month of its issuance: Provided, That the 

Memorandum of Agreement shall stipulate, 

among others, a provision for technology 

transfer to the NCIP. 

SEC. 62. Resolution of Conflicts. - In cases 

of conflicting interest, where there are 

adverse claims within the ancestral domains 

as delineated in the survey plan, and which 

can not be resolved, the NCIP shall hear and 

decide, after notice to the proper parties, the 

disputes arising from the delineation of such 

ancestral domains: Provided, That if the dispute 

is between and/or among ICCs/IPs regarding 

the traditional boundaries of their respective 

ancestral domains, customary process shall 

be followed. The NCIP shall promulgate the 

necessary rules and regulations to carry out its 

adjudicatory functions: Provided, further, That 

any decision, order, award or ruling of the NCIP 

on any ancestral domain dispute or on any matter 

pertaining to the application, implementation, 

enforcement and interpretation of this Act may 

be brought for Petition for Review to the Court 

of Appeals within fifteen( 15) days from receipt 

of a copy thereof 

SEC. 63. Applicable Laws. - Customary laws, 

traditions and practices of the ICCs/IPs of 

the land where the conflict arises shall be 

applied first with respect to property rights, 

claims and ownerships, hereditary succession 

and settlement of land disputes. Any doubt or 

ambiguity in the application and interpretation 

of laws shall be resolved in favor of the 

ICCs/IPs. 

SEC. 64. Remedial Measures. - Expropriation 

may be resorted to in the resolution of conflicts of 

interest following the principle of the "common 

good." The NCIP shall take appropriate 

legal action for the cancellation of officially 

documented titles which were acquired illegally: 

Provided, That such procedure shall ensure that 

the rights of possessors in good faith shall be 

respected: Provided further, That the action for 

cancellation shall be initiated within two (2) 

years from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, 

finally, that the action for reconveyance shall be 

within a period of ten ( 10) years in accordance 

with existing laws. 

CHAPTER IX: 

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURES FOR 

ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS 

SEC. 65. Primacy of Customary Laws and 

Practices. - When disputes involve ICCs/IPs, 

customary laws and practices shall be used to 

resolve the dispute. 

SEC. 66. Jurisdiction of the NClP. - The NCIP, 

through its regional offices, shall have jurisdiction 

over all claims and disputes involving rights 

of ICCs/IPs: Provided, however, That no such 

dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the 

parties have exhausted all remedies provided 

under their customary laws. For this purpose, a 

certification shall be issued by the Council of 

62 AITPN


Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt 

to settle the dispute that the same has not been 

resolved, which certification shall be a condition 

precedent to the filing of a petition with the 

NCIP. 

SEC. 67. Appeals to the Court of Appeals. - 

Decisions of the NCIP shall be appealable to 

the Court of Appeals byway of a petition for 

review. 

SEC. 68. Execution of Decisions, Awards 

Orders. - Upon expiration of the period herein 

provided and no appeal is perfected by any of 

the contending parties, the Hearing Of ricer of 

the NCIP, on its own initiative or upon motion 

by the prevailing party, shall issue a writ of 

execution requiring the sheriff or the proper 

officer to execute final decisions, orders or 

awards of the Regional Hearing Officer of the 

NCIP. 

SEC. 69. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the NClP. - 

The NCIP shall have the power and authority: 

a) To promulgate rules and regulations 

governing the hearing and disposition 

of cases filed before it as well as those 

pertaining to its internal functions and 

such rules and regulations as may be 

necessary to carry out the purposes of this 

Act; 

b) To administer oaths, summon the parties to 

a controversy, issue subpoenas requiring 

the attendance and testimony of witnesses 

or the production of such books, papers, 

contracts, records, agreements and other 

document of similar nature as may be 

material to a just determination of the 

matter under investigation or hearing 

conducted in pursuance of this Act; 

c) To hold any person in contempt, directly 

or indirectly, and impose appropriate 

penalties therefor; and 

d) To enjoin any or all acts involving or 

arising from any case pending before it 

AITPN 

which, if not restrained forthwith, may 

cause grave or irreparable damage to any 

of the parties to the case or seriously affect 

social or economic activity. 

SEC. 70. No Restraining Order or Preliminary 

Injunction. - No inferior court of the Philippines 

shall have jurisdiction to issue an restraining 

order or writ of preliminary injunction against the 

NCIP or any of its duly authorized or designated 

offices in any case, dispute or controversy 

arising from, necessary to, or interpretation 

of this Act and other pertinent laws relating to 

ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains. 

CHAPTER X: 

ANCESTRAL DOMAINS FUND 

SEC. 71. Ancestral Domains Fund. - There 

is hereby created a special fund, to be known 

as the Ancestral Domains Fund, an initial 

amount of One hundred thirty million pesos 

(P130,000,000) to cover compensation for 

expropriated lands, delineation and development 

of ancestral domains. An amount of Fifty 

million pesos (P50,000,000) shall be sourced 

from the gross income of the Philippine Charity 

Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) from its lotto 

operation, Ten million pesos (P10,000,000) 

from the gross receipts of the travel tax of the 

preceding year, the fund of the Social Reform 

Council intended for survey and delineation of 

ancestral lands/domains, and such other source 

as the government may deem appropriate. 

Thereafter, such amount shall be included in the 

annual General Appropriations Act. Foreign as 

well as local funds which are made available 

for the ICCs/lPs through the government of 

the Philippines shall be coursed through the 

NCIP. The NCIP may also solicit and receive 

donations, endowments and grants in the form 

of contributions, and such endowments shall 

be exempted from income or gift taxes and 

all other taxes, charges or fees imposed by 

the government or any political subdivision or 

instrumentality thereof. 

63


CHAPTER XI: PENALTIES 

SEC. 72. Punishable Acts and Applicable 

Penalties.- Any person who commits violation 

of any of the provisions of this Act, such as, but 

not limited to, unauthorized and/or unlawful 

intrusion upon any ancestral lands or domains 

as stated in Sec. 10, Chapter III, or shall commit 

any of the prohibited acts mentioned in Sections 

21 and 24, Chapter V, Section 33, Chapter VI 

hereof, shall be punished in accordance with 

the customary laws of the ICCs/IPs concerned: 

Provided, That no such penalty shall be cruel, 

degrading or inhuman punishment: Provided, 

further, That neither shall the death penalty or 

excessive fines be imposed. This provision shall 

be without prejudice to the right of any ICCs/ 

IPs to avail of the protection of existing laws. 

In which case, any person who violates any 

provision of this Act shall, upon conviction, be 

punished by imprisonment of not less than nine 

(9) months but not more than twelve (12) years 

or a fine of not less than One hundred thousand 

pesos (P100,000) nor more than Five hundred 

thousand pesos (P500,000) or both such fine 

and imprisonment upon the discretion of the 

court. In addition, he shall be obliged to pay to 

the ICCs/IPs concerned whatever damage may 

have been suffered by the latter as a consequence 

of the unlawful act. 

SEC. 73. Persons Subject to Punishment. - If the 

offender is a juridical person, all officers such 

as, but not limited to, its president, manager, or 

head of office responsible for their unlawful act 

shall be criminally liable therefor, in addition 

to the cancellation of certificates of their 

registration and/or license: Provided, That if the 

offender is a public official, the penalty shall 

include perpetual disqualification to hold public 

office.. 

CHAPTER XII: 

MERGER OF THE OFFICE FOR 

NORTHERN CULTURAL COMMUNITIES 

(ONCC) AND THE OFFICE FOR 

SOUTHERN CULTURAL COMMUNIONS 

(OSCC) 

SEC. 74. Merger of ONCC/OSCC. - The Office 

for Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC) and 

the Office of Southern Cultural Communities 

(OSCC), created under Executive Order Nos. 

122-B and 122-C respectively, are hereby 

merged as organic offices of the NCIP and shall 

continue to function under a revitalized and 

strengthened structures to achieve the objectives 

of the NCIP: Provided, That the positions of Staff 

Directors, Bureau Directors, Deputy Executive 

Directors and Executive Directors, except 

positions of Regional Directors and below, are 

hereby phased-out upon the effectivity of this 

Act: Provided, further, That officials of the 

phased-out offices who may be qualified may 

apply for reappointment with the NCIP and 

may be given prior rights in the filling up of the 

newly created positions of NCIP, subject to the 

qualifications set by the Placement Committee: 

Provided, furthermore, That in the case where an 

indigenous person and a non-indigenous person 

with similar qualifications apply for the same 

position, priority shall be given to the former. 

Officers and employees who are to be phasedout 

as a result of the merger of their offices shall 

be entitled to gratuity a rate equivalent to one 

and a half (1 1/2) months salary for every year 

of continuous and satisfactory service rendered 

or the equivalent nearest fraction thereof 

favorable to them on the basis of the highest 

salary received. If they are already entitled 

to retirement or gratuity, they shall have the 

option to select either such retirement benefits 

or the gratuity herein provided. Officers and 

employees who may be reinstated shall refund 

such retirement benefits or gratuity received: 

Provided, finally, That absorbed personnel must 

still meet the qualifications and standards set by 

the Civil Service and the Placement Committee 

herein created. 

SEC. 75. Transition Period. - The ONCC/OSCC 

shall have a period of six (6) months from the 

effectivity of this Act within which to wind up 

its affairs and to conduct audit of its finances. 

SEC. 76. Transfer of Assets/Properties. - All real 

and personal properties which are vested in, or 

belonging to, the merged offices as aforestated 

shall be transferred to the NCIP without further 

need of conveyance, transfer or assignment 

and shall be held for the same purpose as they 

were held by the former offices: Provided, That 

64 AITPN


all contracts, records and documents relating 

to the operations of the merged offices 

shall be transferred to the NCIP. All agreements 

and contracts entered into by the merged offices 

shall remain in full force and effect unless 

otherwise terminated, modified or amended by 

the NCIP. 

SEC. 77. Placement Committee. - Subject 

to rules on government reorganization, a 

Placement Committee shall be created by the 

NCIP, in coordination with the Civil Service 

Commission, which shall assist in the judicious 

selection and placement of personnel in order 

that the best qualified and most deserving 

persons shall be appointed in the reorganized 

agency. The Placement Committee shall be 

composed of seven (7) commissioners and an 

ICCs'/IPs' representative from each of the first 

and second level employees association in the 

Offices for Northern and Southern Cultural 

Communities (ONCC/OSCC), nongovernment 

organizations (NGOs) who have served the 

community for at least five (5) years and peoples 

organizations (POs) with at least five (5) years 

of existence. They shall be guided by the criteria 

of retention and appointment to be prepared 

by the consultative body and by the pertinent 

provisions of the civil service law. 

CHAPTER XIII: 

FINAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 78. Special Provision. - The City of Baguio 

shall remain to be governed by its Charter and 

all lands proclaimed as part of its town site 

reservation shall remain as such until otherwise 

reclassified by appropriate legislation: Provided, 

That prior land rights and titles recognized and/ 

or acquired through any judicial, administrative 

or other processes before the effectivity of this 

Act shall remain valid: Provided, further, That 

this provision shall not apply to any territory 

which becomes part of the City of Baguio after 

the effectivity of this Act. 

SEC. 79. Appropriations. - The amount 

necessary to finance the initial implementation 

of this Act shall be charged against the current 

year's appropriation of the ONCC and the OSCC. 

AITPN 

Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for 

its continued implementation shall be included 

in the annual General Appropriations Act. 

SEC. 80. Implementing Rules and Regulations. 

- Within sixty (60) days immediately after 

appointment, the NCIP shall issue the necessary 

rules and regulations, in consultation with the 

Committees on National Cultural Communities 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate, 

for the effective implementation of this Act. 

SEC. 81. Saving Clause. - This Act will not 

in any manner adversely affect the rights 

and benefits of the ICCs/IPs under other 

conventions, recommendations, international 

treaties, national laws, awards, customs and 

agreements. 

SEC. 82. Separability Clause. - In case any 

provision of this Act or any portion thereof 

is declared unconshtubona1 by a competent 

court, other provisions shall not be affected 

thereby. 

SEC. 83. Repealing Clause. - Presidential 

Decree No. 410, Executive Order Nos. 122-B 

and 122-C, and all other laws, decrees, orders, 

rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent 

with this Act are hereby repealed or modified 

accordingly. 

SEC. 84. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect 

fifteen (15) days upon its publication in the 

(official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers 

of general circulation. Approved, JOSE DE 

VENECIA, JR. Speaker of the House of 

Representatives ERNESTO M. MACEDA 

President of the Senate This Act, which is a 

consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1728 and 

House Bill No. 9125 was finally passed by the 

Senate and the House of Representatives on 

October 22, 1997. ROBERTO P. NAZARENO 

Secretary General House of Representatives 

LORENZO E. LEYNES, JR. Secretary of 

the Senate Approved: Oct 29 1997 FIDEL V. 

RAMOS President of the Philippines 

65


Annexure – II 

Office of the President 

Of the Philippines 

Malacanang 

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 726 

TRANFERRING THE NATIONAL 

COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN 

REFORM TO THE DEPARTMENT 

OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

WHEREAS , it is the duty of the Sate to protect 

the rights of indigenous cultural communities and 

indigenous peoples to their ancestral domains 

to ensure their economic, social and cultural 

well being and to recognize the applicability 

of customary laws governing property rights 

of relations in determining the ownership and 

extent of ancestral domains; 

WHEREAS, the State recognizes, respects 

and protects the rights of indigenous cultural 

communities and indigenous peoples to 

preserve and develop their cultures, traditions 

and institutions; 

WHEREAS, National Commission on 

Indigenous Peoples was created by Republic Act 

No. 8371 entitled AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, 

PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF 

INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/ 

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, CREATING 

THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, ESTABLISHING 

IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, 

APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; 

WHEREAS, the National Commission on 

Indigenous Peoples was placed under the 

Department of Agrarian Reform by Executive 

Order No. 364 entitled TRANSFORMING THE 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM 

INTO THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND 

REFORM on September 27, 2004; 

WHEREAS, there is a continuing need to 

remain vigilant in protecting the rights and 

guaranteeing the respect for the cultural 

integrity of indigenous cultural communities 

and indigenous peoples, and ensuring that all 

members of indigenous cultural communities 

and indigenous peoples benefit on an equal 

footing from the rights and opportunities which 

national laws and regulations grant to other 

members of the population; 

WHEREAS, the Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources is mandated to be the 

primary agency responsible for the conservation, 

management, development, and proper use of 

the country's environment and natural resources 

and one of its objectives is to conserve specific 

terrestrial and marine areas representative of 

the Philippine natural and cultural heritage 

for present and future generation and one of 

its powers is the preservation of cultural and 

natural heritage through wildlife conservation 

and segregation of national parks and other 

natural areas. 

WHEREAS, Section 17, Article VII of the 

Constitution provides that the President 

shall have control of all executive departments, 

bureaus and offices and shall ensure that all laws 

be faithfully executed; 

WHEREAS, paragraph 2, Section 31, Chapter 

10, Title III, Book III of Executive Order No. 

292 grants the President the continuing authority 

to reorganize the administrative structure of the 

Office of the President and the power to transfer 

66 AITPN


any function under the Office of the President to 

any other Department; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA- 

MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the 

Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the 

powers vested in me by law, do hereby order: 

SECTION 1. Placement under the Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources. The 

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples 

is hereby placed under the Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. 

SECTION 2. Effectivity. This Executive Order 

shall take effect immediately. 

DONE in the City of Manila, this 23rd day of 

May in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand 

and Eight. 

By the President: 

Sgd. 

Sgd. 

EDUARDO R. ERMITA 

Gloria M. Arroyo 

Executive Secretary 

AITPN 

67

Asian Indigenous & Tribal People's Network 

P.O. Box 9627, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, India 

Tel/fax: +91-11-25503624 

Email: coordinator@aitpn.org 

Website: www.aitpn.org

The Contest for Control - Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?