TungtongantiumiliIPRA: A detailed look of what they are saying and how we should respond.Only a law of such breadth, depth and scope as R.A. 8371 can provide our indigenous peoples with the seeds of their empowerment and social equity.- Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos during the signing of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, 29 October 1997

Or so we thought? Indigenous peoples are among the most disadvantaged and marginalized human beings on earth. Centuries of colonization have made them victims of exploitation, and some are even on the verge of extinction after getting forced out of their ancestral territories.

The modern world has continued this pattern with the introduction of so-called economic development projects such as dams, mining operations, plantations, eco-tourism, and geothermal plants that have led to the massive displacement of indigenous peoples. Along with the loss of their land is the gradual deterioration of their culture and identity.Recognizing their sad plight, the United Nations spearheaded the drafting of the Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples in the 1980s. The UN General Assembly also declared 1995-2004 as the International Decade of the Worlds Indigenous Peoples and in December 2000, created a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. All these developments are milestones for indigenous peoples who have been struggling for decades to win official recognition in the global community.

In June 1989, the General Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO) adopted the Convention Concerning the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Known as ILO Convention 169, it is considered as the only international legal document devoted purely to indigenous peoples so far. It recognizes their aspirations to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life, and economic development and to maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, within the framework of the States in which they live.

In the Philippines, Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 was passed in accordance with the constitutional mandate. The law defines indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples as descendants from populations that inhabited the Philippines at the time of colonization and continue to live as homogenous societies in communally bounded ancestral territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs and other distinctive cultural traits(Retrieved information: www.ilo.org; November 15, 2014).There are no accurate figures on the population of indigenous peoples because of the lack of any formal census. The most recent figures based on an unofficial survey conducted by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) estimates the population of indigenous peoples in the Philippines to be between 1215 million, but the actual population may be higher. Indigenous peoples roughly constitute between 1015 per cent of the total population of the Philippines and are present in 65 of the countrys 78 provinces (Retrieved information: www.ifad.org; November 15, 2014).

POPULATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES BY REGION

Source: National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

REGIONPOPULATION

CAR1,252,962

Region I1,039,447

Region II1,014,955

Region II227,675

Region IV717,122

Region V185,488

Region VI145,959

Region VII29,150

Region VIII36,987

Region IX1,137,197

Region X1,444,503

Region XI2,539,767

Region XII855,760

Region XIII874,456

ARMM313,749

TOTAL11,778,190

While the tribal groups shared a common cultural history, individual groups developed distinct customs depending on their abilities to adjust to their respective environment and outside contacts through international trade, supplies and ideas. Some groups developed more sophisticated societies than other tribes, especially those in the hinterlands. The Butuanos and Manobosin the northeastern part of Mindanao became major players in regional and international trade in the 10th and 11th centuries due to their superior entrepreneurial drive, seafaring skills and political organization. Over the centuries, inter-island and inter-tribal trade between lowland dwellers and highland minorities were common features in the archipelago. Still, in pre-colonial times, tribal warfare and slave raiding were common practice.

Throughout Philippine history, the political attitude towards indigenous peoples and their rights have undergone many changes. During the colonial period, from 1521, indigenous peoples who were not assimilated into Christianity were then called and identified as the non-Christian(Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro 39 Phil. 660)or savage tribes (Cario v. Insular Govt.GR No. 2689 March 25, 1909) and thus are the less enlightened minorities of our population.While the direction seemed clear, it was widely accepted that the journey to achievetangible results for all indigenous peoples would require sustained and concerted efforts by theIPs, government, civil society and the international community. Nearly a decade after the passageof IPRA, it is opportune to take stock of the achievements and shortfalls of this legislation and themeasures undertaken for its implementation.The government uses pecentage higher than 10% (13%-15%), though there is no clear basis of this percentaging as well. This is a clear indication of the level of serious interest the government has in identifying the Indigenous Peoples, and the lack of programmatic approach in identifying the various forms of discrimination they experience the lack of basic services and appropriate economic development projects, the overlapping of almost two-thirds of extractive projects with ancestral territories, and the state of poverty of indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples are also victims of continuous and systematic human rights violations, including community displacement, torture and extrajudicial killings.

Over generations, the indigenous peoples have been engaged in various forms of struggles organizing into community organizations, to national formations representing different indigenous communities; there were groups who were part of the armed struggle, there were intense international solidarity work, and there were those who engaged the government and got involved in policy advocacy work. There were groups, the Indigenous Peoples groups and the advocates, who were strategically involved in all of these forms of struggle, at different levels and intensity.

The struggle to have a law that recognized indigenous peoples rights to their lands was not an easy one. At first, the draft law that was submitted to Congress sought to remove from the public and private commercial domain the lands of indigenous peoples. At that time, different indigenous organizations were consulted. The dictator Marcos was just overthrown, and it was under the Presidency of Corazon Aquino when the draft law was first submitted. While the draft was still pending, an administrative order was issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources that recognized claims by communities, and thus, their territories were delineated from other lands (Retrieved information:www.customarylandrightssea.wordpress.com November 15,2014).The Promises of IPRA

In 1997, after ten years of lobbying and campaigning, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) was passed by the Philippine Congress. The IPRA was meant to be a corrective legislation, meaning, it sought to address historical injustices perpetuated against indigenous peoples, and thus contained four significant aspects: (1) the articulation of the recognition of the right to self-governance; (2) the recognition of the bundle of rights held by indigenous peoples, (3) the establishment of a process for the formal recognition of land rights through the introduction of the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) or Certificate Ancestral Land Title (CALT); and, (4) the establishment of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the agency mandated to protect the interest of indigenous peoples. The IPRA more importantly, translated and applied into law the Supreme Courts decision in Carino and the recognized the legality of native titles.

Expanding this list, IPRA therefore provided, first, the articulation of numerous rights that should be afforded to indigenous peoples, which includes:

1. right of ownership over land and natural resources;2. right to develop lands and natural resources;3. right to stay in territories;4. right in case of displacement;5. right to regulate the entry of migrants;6. right to safe and clean air and water;7. right to claim parts of reservations;8. right to resolve conflicts;9. right of redemption;10. freedom from discrimination in labor;11. freedom from conflict; and12. other rights analogous to the foregoing.This list of rights, as well as other rights found in different laws, have been used by communities and non-government organizations to protect indigenous peoples rights from encroachment. In this way, IPRA was a sentry that delayed or hampered the entry of unwanted projects into ancestral territories.

IPRA was also the only legislation that specifically provided for the right of indigenous peoples to determine their own development, even if there was a qualification in the 1987 Constitution that such development of communities must be in accordance with national development. The law specifically states 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. Ideally, this would mean that indigenous peoples do not only have the power to participate in decision-making processes of the State, but going beyond that, they themselves have the power to determine the fates of their territories and their lives.

Another introduction of the IPRA that remains to be used as a strategy to secure land security is the establishment of a formal system that will recognize ancestral territories. Though in the past land laws in the Philippines, reference is made to the territories of cultural minorities, and these laws have always given restrictions on ownership on territories. Some land laws do not even recognize indigenous ownership, instead, considers the land as part of agrarian reform or resettlement reservations. Others would impose limits on the size and expanse of ownership. With IPRA, communities can apply for a formal title that can be as much as tens of thousands of hectares, as long as the community can prove time immemorial possession.

The last, and maybe the most controversial element, of IPRA is the creation of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples or NCIP. The NCIP has the mandate to protect and promote the rights of communities. It has the power to formulate policies and regulations for the proper implementation of IPRA. It was supposed to be an independent agency whose members were representatives of indigenous peoples themselves. It also had the power to determine cases that involved indigenous peoples.

The passage of IPRA was indeed historical. It is a progressive law, moving away from the regalian doctrine the state control and ownership of land and other resources. Thus, IPRA received broad support, with a lot of indigenous communities and advocates being hopeful that this law can actually have positive impacts on the lives of the indigenous communities. There were, some, however, who remained cynical and suspect of how this law, a product of long and hard negotiations and compromises, can actually effect meaningful and fundamental changes in the political, economic and social conditions of the indigenous peoples.

Challenges

In the course of its lifetime, the IPRA has met some very serious challenges, one of which was the contest to its constitutionality filed by a former Supreme Court Justice. A year after its passage, in 1998, Justice Isagani Cruz claimed that the IPRA was contrary to the Regalian Doctrine contained in the Philippine Constitution, specifically because the IPRA states that indigenous peoples own the natural resources found within their territories. The Supreme Court reached a split decision in the case in December 2000. And by virtue of this ruling deadlock, the IPRA remained to be constitutional. It is the position of our organization, however, that it is not IPRA that is at the core of this case. Nor the rights of indigenous peoples, as these rights have not ceased to exist, and are only awaiting societys ability to recognize them. What is on trial was the willingness of the State and its people to finally rid themselves of prejudices and misplaced fears.

Aside from this legal challenge, IPRA faces other challenges which can be categorized into two: that at the policy-level, and at the implementation level. At the policy level, government has issued a number of administrative regulations on the implementation of IPRA. As the years pass, we have seen in particular, the executive department systematically watering down the rights of indigenous peoples, especially that of the right to self-determination.

Part and parcel of the right to self-determination is the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). Since 1997, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples or NCIP has revised the rules on FPIC twice, with the underlying objective to make the entry of extractive projects easier and faster. The 2006 FPIC Guidelines, for example, was issued to give way to the commitments made under the Mineral Action Plan of the Philippines, facilitating the rapid and easy entry of mining projects in ancestral domains through the so-called harmonization of IPRA with the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. In fact, as of February 2008, almost 60% of projects that have required FPIC were mining projects, thus, making mining a very relevant issue for communities.

The government has even further provided for sub-categories within the indigenous peoples sector that has resulted to more discrimination. FPIC, for example, is not a right that is afforded to all indigenous peoples. Immigrant IPs, by default, are not afforded FPIC, for the simple reason that they cannot claim the land as their ancestral territories. Such is the struggle of the Ifugaos in Didipio, Nueva Vizcaya, when their FPIC was not taken upon the entry of a mining project by the simple fact that they are immigrants.

Meanwhile, despite the introduction of the CADT/CALT as mere paper or formal recognition of indigenous right to land, indigenous peoples still suffer from tenurial insecurity. This is partly due to the fact that there is either a real or perceived conflict of land laws and policies, and most often than not, these laws and policies are interpreted in favor of big businesses, the rich, and the powerful despite IPRAs requirement that any doubt or ambiguity in the application of laws shall be resolved in favor of the indigenous communities.

Throughout Philippine history, various land laws were passed that resulted to a systematic taking of ancestral territories. The underlying cause of such laws was to rid government and transnational corporations of communities that were roadblocks to more profit. As Prof. Owen Lynch pointed out, land laws were passed during the American era because, Taft and Worcester were, first and foremost, eager to lure capital into the colony. They believed that this required them to have total control over the allocation of legal rights to natural resources. The key elements of their hidden agenda were to keep the estimates of public land occupants low and ensure that the processes for recognizing and allocating legal rights to land resources were inefficient and bureaucratically cumbersome. Section VI of the PLA (Public Land Act) went even further. It provided the regime with a mechanism for rolling back recognition of private rights granted during the Spanish era for failure to secure proper official records or documents or to comply with necessary conditions [CA 141, Sec. 54, par. 8]. Thus, these laws mandated that failure for communities to register or file a formal claim over these lands would operate as a loss of real rights by virtue of prescription. Ancestral territories were thus, with one stroke of the pen, have been classified as forestlands, protected areas, agricultural lands or mineral lands, depriving communities their right to due process. The strategy employed by our colonizers to take lands of communities has unfortunately been used up until present by the Philippine government.

Registration, which is a foreign concept for indigenous peoples, has been unfortunately projected by different groups to be equivalent to land security, when the same has been shown to be seldom true. The Subanons of Mt. Canatuan, in Zamboangadel Norte were among the first communities to be issued a CADT in 2003. The instrument, however, was only registered in 2008. Despite the existence of the CADT, their leaders could not even enter his own lands because of the operations of TVI Resource Development, Inc., the subsidiary of Canadian TVI Pacific Inc. The Subanons have brought their case in 2007 to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination for redress, failing to get any from domestic remedies.

The lack or absence of appropriate legal mechanisms for indigenous peoples to regain their lands has also greatly limited the corrective characteristic of IPRA. This is added to the fact that IPRA mandates indigenous peoples to respect vested titles, with the burden of proof to prove otherwise on these poor communities. The struggle for recognition of ancestral domain has been bureaucratized reduced to paper submissions, fulfillment of forms and checklists.

Judicial rulings have also glaringly favored the interests of the mineral industry over those of indigenous peoples, which have been labeled as parochial claiming that mining is an industry for the publics benefit. Customary laws, meanwhile, remain to be at the outskirts of the legal fora, waiting for recognition from the legal community.

These are only some of the policy issues that continuously plague indigenous peoples. The implementation of IPRA is altogether a different matter.

Government claimed that the constitutional challenge to IPRA greatly delayed the implementation of the law. It uses this reason as an excuse for the numerous criticisms on the delay in the delivery of services and delineation of ancestral territories. For example, ancestral territories are estimated to cover 7.5 million hectares out of the 30 million hectares that make up the Philippines. After eleven years since the passage of IPRA, as of May 2009, only 38% of these territories were delineated, representing 107 CADTs and 207 CALTs. Out of these 107 CADTs, only 24 have been formally registered.

It has come to a point that communities themselves have questioned the relevance of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the institution that was created supposedly to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. NCIP has recently been called as inutile and self-serving. Some groups and communities have called for the abolition of the agency because of the real and perceived corruption of some of its officers and workers. It has time and again been criticized as toeing the line of transnational corporations, implementing the law differently in different communities, depending on the demands of these corporations. NCIP, in the cases of the Mangyans in Mindoro and the Subanons of Zamboanga del Norte, among many others, have created non-traditional leadership structures to ensure the entry of mining.

The NCIP itself, on one hand, has made it easy for transnational corporations to exploit indigenous communities, while on the other, made it difficult for communities to secure their territories and to access justice. It has issued regulations that are difficult, unwieldy and almost impossible for communities to comply with. The regulations that are supposed to facilitate the enjoyment of communities to their rights are the same ones that hamper and hinder community development. Some of these regulations would include the Rules on Pleadings and Practices, the Delineation of CADTs/CALTs, and the FPIC Guidelines.

The NCIP has been shown also to be weak in asserting its political will. As an agency that has been tossed around the bureaucracy for a number of times, first being attached to the Office of the President, then to the Department of Agrarian Reform, then to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, then back again to the Office of the President, it has not proven its integrity and independence on issues that challenge the jurisdiction of other government offices, despite the fact that IPRA has already given primary jurisdiction to the NCIP.

These things are all made possible because it is evident in the law that, not only does its implementation depend on the initiatives of the NCIP, but it has made the NCIP a super body which enjoys not only executive powers, but also quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial as well.

The challenges that communities face with regard to the implementation and interpretation of the law comes from the fact that they hold the key to so-called national development. As mentioned earlier, development projects overlap with about 60% of ancestral territories; and, in a country that offers unabashedly its natural resources for investments, it does not wish to compromise the economic opportunities that foreign investments bring because of something as simple as the free, prior and informed consent.

Public statements, research studies and occasional media reports suggest that problems ofIP discrimination still persists. For instance, in a speech delivered at an anti-poverty conference in2001, former Chairperson Evelyn Dunuan of the NCIP noted: Today, when one speaks of indigenous peoples, it is not so much about their beautiful story as peace-loving communities bound to Mother Nature and Father Spirit of the Universe; nor their talents and skills and accomplishments. For the term indigenous peoples has been made synonymous to oppression, exploitation, discrimination and poverty. They, whose ancestors were once the proud rulers of this land, are now the scum of the earth, the so-called poorest of the poor in the Philippines.

Official statistics confirm such critical observations. According to the Philippine Human Development Report in the year 2000, provincial regions with a large ICC/IP population accounted for nine out of the ten provinces with the lowest HDI (Human Development Index) rating; the only exception was Western Samar in the Visayas. The ten provinces with the highest HDI are all located in the main island of Luzon and, except for Isabela province, have no significant ICC/IP population.

IP Problems (aside from the ones which are apparent)Food security is more a goal than a reality for indigenous peoples. A major factor causing food insecurity and poverty among indigenous peoples is the loss of ancestral land because of displacement by development projects and extractive industries (e.g. mining, dams and logging) or natural causes (e.g. the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo). Another factor is environmental degradation destruction of forests, pollution of waters and loss of agro biodiversity as a result of impacts of extractive industries and agriculture modernization. These factors have undermined the capacity of the indigenous peoples to survive because they are very dependent on their land and resources. For instance, the Ibaloi and Kankanaeyof Itogon, Benguet have endured more than a century of large-scale mining that has denuded their forests, destroyed their mountains and drained their natural water sources. The mining companies undertook no restoration of the environment after the mines were abandoned. Most of the people in mining-affected areas are now dependent on irregular cash-generating income for survival (EED-TFIP 2004).

Modern agriculture is seen as the factor that has most extensively constrained indigenous peoples food systems. It has caused loss of agro biodiversity and the emergence of new types of pests and diseases, and has threatened the continued practice of indigenous sustainable agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has introduced and promoted high-yielding varieties, which require massive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides; this has reduced soil fertility in farmlands, leading to a diminishing yield. The shift from traditional to hybrid and genetically-modified crops has also caused the extinction of superior traditional varieties of crops. This is clearly seen in the case of the Kankanaey village of Dandanac in Besao, Mountain Province where the number of traditional rice varieties decreased within a period of eight years from 16 traditional varieties in 1996 to only 7 traditional varieties in 2004, because of the introduction of high-yielding varieties.

In some regions, armed conflict in indigenous peoplescommunities has led to the loss of their livelihoods. Many indigenous communities, particularly in Mindanao, have been forced to evacuate from their homes and farms because of military operations against Muslim and other armed groups.

Indigenous peoples invariably experience seasonal to chronic food shortages during the year. Seasonal food shortages are reflected in language: in Aeta, the word is tigkiriwi, and in Erumanen it is kawad-on. These shortages usually happen during the dry season when the crop farms are not utilized because of the low viability of crops. A longer yet recurrent cycle of food shortages occurs when dry spells are considerably extended and pronounced. Temporary food shortages occur during natural calamities, more particularly during typhoons. Chronic food shortages, ranging from moderate to severe, are experienced when food stocks are continually inadequate within the household.

During times of food shortage, members of indigenous households use a variety of strategies in order to augment household food stocks to be able to survive. Some of these coping mechanisms are: diversifying food crops and sources, hunting and gathering, engaging in menial labor in nearby urban areas to earn a daily wage and increasing the size of cultivated land. Emergency measures taken by the family during times of shortage include reducing consumption or eating lower quality foods, borrowing food or money from neighbours or kin, selling assets such as farm land, stinting the number of meals per day, evacuation, outmigrating and mendicancy.

Community-based systems are also used as adaptive strategies during food shortages. Systems of mutual help among kin and community members include the Erumanen sawit, Eskayahongos and alayon, Igorotub-ubbo and innabuyogand other similar practices.

Despite the IPRAs protective provisions, IP workers tend to be the last in and the first out of a job. This in itself is a discriminatory practice; IP workers seem to be the first to be affected when management has to resort to collective dismissal for economic reasons. Therefore, in order to avoid any suspicion of discrimination, management should consult staff representatives regarding the criteria to be applied for termination, well in advance of any scheduled retrenchment. Complaints over violations of the right to security of tenure or illegal dismissal are a major cause for individual grievances, strained labor-management relations, administrative and court cases, and media coverage. They make up the bulk of cases handled by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) and the NLRC, but available statistics do not differentiate cases according to the ethnic origin of the complainants. Several reasons may explain why there are no court decisions on termination for reasons of ethnicity. For one, the number of IP workers holding regular employment is very small. Moreover, discriminatory termination on grounds of ethnicity is difficult to prove in court. Also, IP workers may not be aware of their rights or the procedures to follow in filing a complaint, and finally, IPs may prefer conciliation and mediation through traditional channels in settling labor conflicts.

Wages: As compensation for services that workers render under various forms of contractual arrangements, wages are a key element in the overall employment package. For a majority of workers, wages are the main, often the only, monetary income; therefore, the role of wages as a source of livelihood cannot be overestimated.

For the State, wages are important instruments to promote equality, and so it has taken a strong hand in upholding the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value by women and men, both for IPs and non-IPs. The constitutional provisions on fundamental equality before the law of all citizens are echoed in the Philippine Labor Code and the IPRA. The IPRA considers it an unlawful act of discrimination to pay lower wages to IPs than non-IPs for work of equal value.

National legislation on indigenous peoples at a glanceIPRA provides for the creation of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as its implementing agency. It is an agency under the office the President that is composed of seven commissioners appointed by the President representing the seven ethnographic regions in the country as defined by the IPRA. The NCIP is the primary government agency that formulates and implements policies, plans and programmes for the recognition, promotion and protection of the rights and well-being of indigenous peoples and for the recognition of their ancestral domains and their rights thereto (IPRA Chapter 7 Sec. 38 & 44a). However, despite the enactment of the IPRA, other laws, doctrines and policies on land and natural resources continue to be in force, which deny the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands. An example is the Regalian doctrine, introduced by theSpanish colonial government. Applying the theory of jura regalia, the colonizers declared the entire archipelago as the property of the King of Spain, while issuing land grants to private individuals. Thus, communal lands became part of the public domain, unless proven otherwise by an official property right or legal title. Being independent of Spanish colonial rule, indigenous peoples did not register their lands nor acquired titles even though they had occupied their ancestral lands since time immemorial. Thus, most of indigenous peoples ancestral lands are today considered as inalienable and indisposable lands within the public domain, and thus belonging to the State.

The American colonizers essentially retained the concept of the Regalian doctrine and passed more laws such as Public Land Acts, Land Registration Acts and Mining Acts that reinforced the States control over the public domain. Likewise, the 1987 Philippine Constitution effectively retained the Regalian doctrine in Section 2, Article XII, which states that all lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna and other natural resources are owned by the State.

Thus, the Philippine legal system of land ownership is essentially contradictory to indigenous peoples concepts of land ownership and tenure over their ancestral territories. In fact, the IPRA itself in Section 56 provides that property rights within ancestral domains already existing and/or vested shall be recognized and respected, thereby limiting the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral domains and land and natural resources found therein.The convergence between international and national understanding of equality at work goes back to the 1950s, after the Philippines became a member of the UN and the ILO. The Philippine government has successively ratified some 30 ILO Conventions, including those related to equal opportunity and non-discrimination in employment. In line with these international instruments, the Philippines has promulgated an impressive body of anti-discriminatory legislation. These include the Equal Opportunity Act of 1984, the 1992 Magna Carta for the Disabled, the 1995 Magna Carta for Migrant Workers, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995), the Paternity Leave Act of 1996),the HIV/AIDS Prevention Act of 1998, and the Solo Parents Welfare Act of 2000.The IPRA laws on Social Justice and Human Rights and its Implementing Rules has detailed provisions on recruitment, working conditions, social protection, access to education, training and health services for IP workers. This means that IP equality is addressed in a comprehensive manner INDIGENOUS FILIPINOS IN THE WORLD OF WORK at various levels through regulatory, promotional and developmental measures. The integrated approach is necessary, as equality and non-discrimination of IPs in the areas of employment cannot be seen in isolation. They are closely linked to other important areas where ICCs/IPs continues to suffer from deficits in equality.

For instance, the right to self-governance would be meaningless without cultural integrity. In the same vein, the right to ancestral domains is an important prerequisite for adequate income and livelihood. For the effective protection of ICCs/IPs with regard to recruitment and working conditions, IPRA underlines the paramount role of the State, especially with regard to special measures such as equal opportunity in education and employment, health services, social protection, occupational safety and work-related benefits.

The establishment of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) under IPRA has given IPs a national platform for representing their interests in national development. It also has opened up formal channels for IP claims, investigations into infringements of IPRA, and the implementation of corrective measures. To ensure adequate representation of ICC/IP interests, strict criteria are applied regarding the qualifications of the Chairperson and the six commissioners. For example, they must be appointed from ethnographic regions and have extensive work experience with ICCs/IPs.

As part of social justice, asset reform shall be hastened to expand the endowments of poor people in order to secure entitlements to food, education and health care through the completion of agrarian reform, managing urban land reform, financing socialized housing and intensifying ancestral domain reform and development.

The effectiveness of ICC/IP representation largely determines the successful promotion of their political, economic and cultural rights. There is wider scope for capacity building through the NCIP, various ICC/IP organizations and networks, mandatory representation in policy-making bodies, and local legislative councils. Indeed, ICCs/IPs are making decisions that affect their work, using the mechanisms of customary law for conflict settlement, and determining their own priorities for development. Their consent is required for projects in their areas, and ICCs/IPs are entitled to financial and technical support to fully develop their own institutions and initiatives.

Encouraged by their right to information and prior informed consent, ICCs/IPs, have become assertive and vocal in defending their human and labor rights and protecting their livelihood and ancestral domain. In recent years, tribal residents in Sinacbatand Dalipey in Benguet province successfully made a petition and halted a plan by the Luzon Hydro Corporation to build a tunnel underneath their mountain communities that would dry up the springs essential for their livelihood.

Many Filipinos suffered during the colonial rule of the Spanish and American empires.Under Spanish rule, many of the indigenous people were able to avoid contact and attempts of assimilation by retreating to inaccessible mountainous areas, particularly on the island of Mindanao and in the Cordillera region. However, this radically changed under American colonial policy as is well reflected in a statement of then American President William McKinley who announced a policy of benevolent assimilation for the native Filipinos in 1898. As part of this campaign, English was imposed as the official language of the Philippines. Today the Philippines are the 4th biggest nation of English speakers in the world (Retrieved information: www.ipon-philippines.info; November 15, 2014).

The passage of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) on October 29, 1997 caused similar jubilation that reverberated even from the farthest outskirts of the Philippine society, home to approximately 14 to 15 million indigenous peoples sub-divided further into 110 ethno-linguistic groups. The common understanding then was finally a national law to protect and uphold the rights of the indigenous peoples has come at last.

More IPRAmises (and some flashes of brilliance)IPRA with the four bundles of rights it swore to protect upon its passage into law came like a long awaited rain. A downpour of celebration temporarily quenched lips that parched from shouting too long in the streets and legislative halls the aspiration for the recognition and protection of indigenous peoples rights.

These four bundles of rights include the right to ancestral domain and lands, right to self-governance and empowerment, social justice and human rights, and right to cultural integrity.

IPRA provides for the establishment of the National Commission for the Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) which the law mandates to protect and promote the interest and well-being of the ICCs/IPs with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions.Unfortunately, as to what extent the NCIP has lived up to its mandate or how IPRA has been implemented since its passage in 1997 is another continuing sad story of the grievances of the indigenous peoples.

The indigenous peoples in the Philippines continue to figure in social discrimination, economic marginalization and political disempowerment, albeit the presence of IPRA and the existence of NCIP. Subject to socio-economic and political exclusion, they have remained the most disadvantaged peoples representing the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable sector (Retrieved information: www.kas.de; November 15, 2014 )

Ergo, more challengesIn an article from the Cordillera Peoples Alliance website entitled: IPRA and NCIP: 17 years of IP rights violation, it said that: Under the framework of the Regalian Doctrine, State laws and policies of the State contradict indigenous laws and practices on land and resources. These were imposed, resulting to the outright violation of indigenous peoples collective rights over their ancestral lands, resources and territorial integrity. State imposed development beneficial only to the ruling elite and their imperialist masters is tantamount to the violation to indigenous peoples right of self-determination. With this, indigenous peoples have been historically marginalised. For one, the Cordillera region has long been regarded by the State as a resource base for plunder, profit and exploitation, in stark contrast to indigenous peoples view that land is life, and thus must be nurtured and protected.

It even cited the findings of UP Baguio College of Social Sciences in a study that validated the basis of CPAs rejection of the IPRA. To wit:a. that NCIPs institutional performance and behavior is greatly affected by presidential leadership and commitment to specify policy optionsthe susceptibility or vulnerability of government bodies and decision makers to external pressures from the interest groups and other political actors.b. Almost complete budgetary dependence to the State; personnel-heavy bureaucracy; persistently weak financial control measures.c. Related to financial resources is the availability of Official Development Assistance (ODA), which generally aimed to integrate or mainstream indigenous peoples into the neoliberal development frameworkthat this situation has led to State, capital and elite capture of the indigenous peoples movement agenda of empowermentd. That the implementation of titling as well as NCIPs performance of its quasi-judicial functions resulted in the strengthening of State powers within ICC (indigenous cultural communities) through the NCIP, with the ostensible aim of incorporating the IPs within the framework of the States legal system that these footprints nonetheless manifest increasing penetration into the lives and affairs of the IPs.e. That while the government claims that no complaint in FPIC implementation exists, various case studies and newspaper accounts have documented serious problems and flaws related to the FPIC process in indigenous communities all over the Philippines.f. That State institutionalisation and bureaucratisation of the Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) paradoxically pose constrains to the agenda of indigenous peoples empowerment. g. That community-based and rights bearer based activities and approaches are not evident in the accomplishment reports of NCIP.h. That there is growing empirical evidence that the process and politics of land titling may in fact lead to market (corporate) and elite capture of the resources and benefits resulting from land exploitation due to the asymmetrical power relations among the corporations, State and indigenous peoples, with the latter usually losing out in a complicated bureaucratic process that is alien and alienating to them.i. That mainstreaming or assimilationist direction of State programs and policies is a clearly a continuity of the colonial an post-colonial tack of assimilating and integrating indigenous communitie sinto the economic, social, political and cultural life of the Philippine nation state and its development agenda (Retrieved information: www.cpaphils.or; November 16, 2014 )

In Baguio City for instance, the issue is way beyond the Casa Vallejo case, because the NCIP has granted CALTs and Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles or CADTs to what the city government claims as government property. Early this year, some claimants were put into the limelight when they tried reclaiming a former American colonial government employees home-turned hotel atop Session Road. An NCIP adjudication office granted descendants of Cosen Piraso, a Baguio Ibaloi pioneer, permission to take hold of the citys oldest hotel, Casa Vallejo, which, they say is within their CALT coverage.

Had they succeeded, the Piraso descendants would have been a showcase for IPRA. Under new management, the citys oldest hotel would have been possibly renamed BaleiPiraso, which sounds more indigenous than the hotels Spanish name.

Last October, Baguio Rep. NicasioAliping Jr. filed Resolution 419, directing the House Committee on Indigenous Peoples to probe titles issued by the NCIP over city government lands, public places, and reservations.

This included portions of Wright Park now covered by 29 Transfer Certificate of Titles (TCTs); Forbes Park and Teachers Camp reservations, three TCTs; Philippine Military Academy and Loakan Airport airstrip, six TCTs; Baguio Dairy Farm, six TCTs; and Casa Vallejo, eight TCTs.

After the noise created by the Casa Vallejo case, the House of Representatives Committee on Indigenous Peoples announced in February it would investigate land titles the NCIP issued.

North Cotabato Rep. Nancy Catamco had written Baguio City Mayor Mauricio Domogan, requesting him to provide his comment or position on the reported controversial issuance of ancestral land titles in the city.

But even before House inquiries could proceed and produce results, reports about titled ancestral lands being sold are disturbing. Titled ancestral lands inside the reservations of Camp John Hay and the Baguio City Economic Zone are being sold indiscriminately, according to reports quoting the DENR-Cordillera.

Elsewhere, indigenous peoples take pride in claiming that if one looks at Google Earth, the green patches of the earth, where forests have remained intact, are found in indigenous territories. Reason: IPs have managed their forests in a sustainable manner so much so they would not extract more than what they need, always considering the needs of the next generations (at least until the seventh generation).

Closer to home, the clan-managed muyong woodlot in Ifugao and the community-protected pine forests of Sagada and other towns in Mountain Province are good examples. Unfortunately, the areas within the vegetable belt of Benguet, where mossy and pine forests have been transformed into vegetable plots, are bad models.

The reports about Baguios ancestral lands being sold, especially to non-indigenous business people, are giving the IPRA a bad name. If this is so, IPRA is practically facilitating the sale of ancestral lands to private individuals, who are free to transform the property into subdivisions or commercial centers, for example (Malanes, 2014).

Kept calm and moved on. So the Constitution contradicts with the IPRA. Now, what?

First, IPRA, though progressive, was far from a perfect law. There are so many community stories which tell the tale of NCIP or the IPRA being used to facilitate the violation of indigenous peoples rights. For some, IPRA became the instrument by which rights were manipulated to suit the demands of the global market for raw materials. The formal processes that IPRA introduced became the same processes that were used to violate indigenous peoples rights while legitimizing the encroachment of big businesses something that has not changed since Spain settled on our lands. This was possible because law is susceptible to as much as many people that would want to interpret it and use it for their benefit.

Second, the institution that IPRA created, the NCIP, was not so different from the institutions that it abolished because it was composed of the same people and thus used the same culture of corruption and bureaucracy.

Third, the IPRA, though it contained a long list of rights and provisions which sought to protect the rights of the communities, was hardly used in cases before the courts. Instead, other laws were used to challenge violations of indigenous peoples rights.

Fourth, the titling and registration of lands sometimes distracted the communities in achieving genuine land security.

Fifth, community cohesion and organization has achieved more ground than the mere passage of the law. We have seen communities assert their rights with or without IPRA, and instead have looked at laws as only part and parcel of the political context.

And finally, the advocacy of indigenous peoples rights do not end with the passage of a law. It is a continuous struggle to rid our countries the discrimination introduced by colonizers. It is about changing mindsets and prejudices.

The law is either a tool of opportunities or challenges and the IPRA is no different from other laws. The law and its implementation, are, after all, influenced by the political, socio-economic context of a country. In the words of Justice MarvicLeonen:The IPRA, perhaps even if fully implemented, could not be the last word on the recognition of IP rights. Writing and legislating policy has been significant but definitely not enough for the communities that still struggle for genuine recognition, and full and authentic participation. In the end, it is our collective ability to reflect and act on our experiences that will really matter.(A Study in Political Compromise, Philippine Natural Resources Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2001.)

The IPRA has definitely been used for the good and for the bad by different parties, as is the nature of law.

Thus, after more than a decade from the passage of IPRA, it is timely that a comprehensive assessment be made on IPRA. It is imperative that we hear the experiences, reflections and lessons from the communities who actually engaged and used the law in their assertion of rights, as well as from those who have maintained distance from the law and have continued in their struggle for their land, and against encroachment. For us advocates, it is critical at this juncture that we take a deep breath and look how has the law been relevant to the lives of the communities? How has the law been able to correct the historical injustices it meant to address? Or has there been too much hope pinned on a law, when we all know that the passage of IPRA does not automatically translate into justice and change, instead, it is the collective struggle, at the community level all the way at the national level that achieves justice and catalyze fundamental changes in the lives of the indigenous peoples, and in our societies(Muhi and Pansimio, 2014).

The IPRA is considered as a curative law Congress shaped to help IPs regain what government formerly declared as public lands. Following the tongtong tradition (which is similar to the dap-ay of Mountain Province), the city can continue what UP Baguio began early this year at the height of the Casa Vallejo uproar a public forum, which UP Baguio Chancellor RaymundoRovillos calls continuing conversations.

For example, University of the Cordilleras College of Law Dean Reynaldo Agranzamendez put to task the NCIP to come out with an inventory of pending CALTs and CADTs so the public will be informed. Such recommendation, if acted upon, will definitely help the city in mapping its territory, which is much-needed in urban planning. Through these forums, government and private sector and experts in various fields law, urban planning, engineering, management, culture, history, arts, ecology, medicine, farming, and others can work and collaborate together in salvaging what has remained of this city which every concerned citizen calls his or her home. (Malanes, 2014).

1