POLICY REPORT

Indigenous Peoples in the Proposed Bangsamoro: Challenges and

Opportunities in Securing their Rights and Welfare
Fifth of a Seven-Part Roundtable Discussion Series on Muslim Mindanao Autonomy

INTRODUCTION

he recognition and protection of indigenous peoples (IPs) rights is one of the burning
issues in the discussions of the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL). Proponents
aver that the IPs interests and the advancement of their welfare are well considered
in the bill. The protection of their rights shall be under the exclusive powers of the
Bangsamoro Government which shall be in accordance with the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The Bangsamoro Parliament is likewise
mandated to create an appropriate office or ministry for the IPs which will prepare and
implement Bangsamoro programs for the indigenous peoples. Moreover, the IPs will be
provided with an equitable share on income from natural resources. The proposed law also
guarantees their political participation as they shall be represented in the Bangsamoro
Council of Leaders and in the Bangsamoro Parliament.
However, non-Islamized indigenous peoples contend that their rights are not clearly
articulated in the proposed BBL. They question, in particular, the proposed definition of the
Bangsamoro People in the draft bill which subsumes all the natives or original inhabitants of
Mindanao and the Sulu and their spouses and their descendants as Bangsamoro. They argue
that non-Moro IPs have their own distinct culture and identity and do not collectively
ascribe themselves as Bangsamoro. Another contention is the non-reference to the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), a landmark legislation that recognizes the right to
self-determination of various IP groups. Moreover, IP leaders claim that they were not duly
consulted during the peace process negotiations and in the crafting of the BBL. They fear
that once the BBL is implemented sans the proper acknowledgement of their rights, they
will be further marginalized and their ancestral lands will be more vulnerable to exploitation
and seizures.
On August 5, 2015, the fifth roundtable discussion (RTD) on Muslim Mindanao Autonomy
was held at the Senate of the Philippines to discuss the challenges and opportunities of the
Indigenous Peoples under the Bangsamoro. The RTD was attended by the officers and
technical staff of the offices of the Senators and the Senate Secretariat. It was organized by
the Institute for Autonomy and Governance (IAG), the Local Government Development
Foundation (LOGODEF), the Senate Muslim Advocates for Peace and Progress (SMAPP), and
the Senate Economic Planning Office (SEPO).
The resource speakers for the session were Prof. Abhoud Syed Lingga, Executive Director of
the Institute of Bangsamoro Studies; Former Commissioner of Constitutional Commission
of the Philippines Ponciano Bennagen, and Atty. Marlon Manuel who is the national
coordinator of Alternative Law Groups Inc.
This report summarizes the highlights of the fifth RTD.
Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 1

SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS

Bangsamoro and IPs: History and Context

Prof. Abhoud Syed Lingga, Executive Director, Institute of Bangsamoro Studies

ccording to Prof. Lingga, a historian, political scientist, and professor at the Mindanao
State University, the relationship of the Moros and the indigenous peoples in the
proposed Bangsamoro territory can be better understood through the sibling
relationship as exemplified in the traditional story of Mamalu and Tabunaway.
He narrated that before the arrival of Shariff Kabunsuan who introduced Islam in Mindanao,
there were the tribal leaders and brothers Mamalu and Tabuwanay. They have one adopted
sister, Putri Tutina, who, according to the story was found by Mamalu in a bamboo stalk.
When Shariff Kabunsuan arrived, the two brothers agreed to have Putri Tutina marry him.
Shariff Kabunsuan introduced Islam and invited the brothers to embrace the religion. There
was a long debate between Tabunaway and Mamalu until they decided that since
Tabunaway was more inclined to convert to Islam, he will accept the invitation. Mamalu, on
the other hand, chose to remain true to the indigenous tradition and culture. Both brothers
respected their individual choices and forged a treaty that they will continue to regard each
other as brethren.
Because of the agreement, there was no conflict between the two groups. The group of
Mamalu decided to move to the interior side and be in control of the hill country while the
group of Tabunaway stayed along the coast. The descendants of Tabunaway eventually
assumed the responsibility of defending the territory and interacting with neighboring
countries. While the development of political institutions was faster and better on the side
of the descendants of Tabunaway, they maintained the protected and protector
relationship. Prof. Lingga noted that because of their kinship, the political set-up did not
result in the slavery of the descendants of Mamalu by the descendants of Tabunaway. The
two groups were united against common enemies and recognized and respected each
others religion, territory, livelihood, and system of governance. Prof. Lingga added that
while there were some agreements defining the territory at that time, there was no clear
delineation of lands. Although there were some cases such as in North Cotabato where
boundaries are drawn, it did not prevent a Moro from going to a Manobo area to do
farming, and vice versa. The territorial delineation of the area was adopted mainly to
protect future generations.
According to Prof. Lingga, as in the case of Mamalu and Tabuwanay, the relationship
between the Moros and the different IP groups in the proposed Bangsamoro territory
should also be one of peaceful coexistence. It appears that there is only one ancestral
domain shared by the siblings and that the main question is how it would be shared. He
opined that the protection of the rights of the indigenous peoples should be based on an
international standard such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP) rather than on certain laws which have been problematic in
implementation. He noted that this also the reason why the MILF is not keen on including
the IPRA in the draft BBL. He mentioned that despite the IPRA, it has been very easy for
Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 2

mining corporations to operate in indigenous communities. Using an international standard,

he said, will be better in ensuring that the individual and communal property rights, cultural
integrity, customary beliefs, historical and community tradition of the IPs will be protected.

Bangsamoro and IPs: Challenges and Opportunities

Prof. Ponciano Bennagen
Former Commissioner, Constitutional Commission of the Philippines

o capture the complexity and confusion, as well as the directionality of resolution on

the issue of peace process and the BBL, Prof. Bennagen used an indigenous term
called kalibugan. It is a term common in Philippine languages, particularly Sebuano,
and also used as ethnolinguistic identity by at least two groups in Mindanao and a few
others elsewhere, at one time or another. In its dictionary meaning, kalibugan refers to a
mix-up of various elements, whether of things and ideas of the mind which give rise to
confusion. Another word which is related to confusion is complexity. Complexity and
confusion go together with the term kalibugan.
Prof. Bennagen found the term kalibugan as a useful descriptive term in trying to sort out
and capture the confusing complexity entailed by identity politics that characterizes social
movements for one type of autonomy or another. He said that the term kalibugan,
adopted as an ethnolinguistic identity, suggests an analytic path towards its transformation
into a political identity as the people so named struggle for some kind of autonomy in a
rapidly changing world. The mixed-up elements of biology, social and cultural institutions
provide the matrix that enables the kalibugan, as a conscious historical agent, to make
choices while remaining committed to a core identity amidst complexity, confusion, and
change. He said that the term is both descriptive and analytic as it alerts one to the need to
investigate the nuances of the dynamic interplay of biological, social, and cultural elements
of the overall process for autonomy. In relation to the story of Tabunaway and Mamalu,
one can ask: what brought about their complex and confusing relationship? What triggered
the animosities that presently exist, if theres any?
Prof. Bennagen also mentioned some recent global developments, for instance, Scotlands
independence referendum even as it also yearns to be part of the European Union. He
pointed out that identity politics is an ironic twist of globalization because even as
globalization attempts to homogenize the world, identity seems to rise and ethno-linguistic
groups assert their right to self-rule given the various contradictions brought about by the
accelerating rate of change in the global arena.
According to Prof. Bennagen, the acknowledgement of kalibugan should lead to the
search for resolution. As suggested by both the dictionary meanings and the ethnographic
literature, kalibugan resolves itself into linaw/ kalinaw, as in a muddied or turbid
water left undisturbed and becoming clear in due time. According to him, linaw, in many
of the Philippine languages, could be clear glass, clear water, clear thinking. It could also
mean peace. Linaw in Tausug, Manobo, Sebuano, and Tagalog, means peace.

Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 3

Prof. Bennagen referred to the 1987 Philippine Constitution as a kalibugan document. He

underscored that the BBL, as a proposed legal text no less than a basic law in its intent, is
the result of a politically negotiated revolution being waged by the MILF. He then asked the
following questions: Why should a text embodying the aspirations of the revolutionary
struggle forged out of a protracted political negotiation meet the requirements of legality
and constitutionality under a Constitution which in a manner of speaking led to the
necessity of armed revolution in the first place? Should the existing legal and constitutional
framework be loosened enough to entrench the politically negotiated agreement without
breaking it? What precautionary measures are necessary to ensure that adequate structures
and rules of the desired autonomy are in place? Of the mixed elements, how does one get
the right mix so as to transform kalibugan to kalinaw? Is constitutional change needed
or is the liberal reading of the 1897 enough?
Prof. Bennagen remarked that in the proposed Bangsamoro, there are other groups
involved, namely: the Teduray, Lambangian, Higaunon and Blaan. But of special concern are
the Tedurays and the Lambangian Manobo because they are within the core area of the
proposed Bangsamoro. Their right to autonomy is recognized in the 1987 Philippine
Constitution and legally entrenched in the IPRA. Unfortunately, ten years after filing for a
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), the Teduray-Lambangian have yet to receive
their CADT. This has been a major source of frustration with, and distrust of government
institutions, both at the regional and at the national levels, particularly the Office of the
Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) and the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). While a Tribal Peoples
Rights Act or Muslim Mindanao Act (MMA) 241 was enacted in 2008 in the ARMM, it has
not been implemented yet and has no budget provisions. He mentioned that there are
reports that mining companies have already started exploration activities in the Teduray
ancestral domain. In addition, the Tedurays and Lambangian were excluded in the peace
process and in the drafting of the BBL despite their persistent desire to be properly and
adequately engaged.
This situation, according to Prof. Bennagen, is difficult to understand considering that the
IPRA and the ARMM and now, the BBL, have been the results of struggles for selfdetermination/autonomy. It stands to reason that this shared history of struggles for selfdetermination should have resulted in the mutual respect for each others form of
autonomy. The Teduray and Lambangian wanted to nourish their own ancestral domain, a
way of life guided by ancient wisdom and principles embodied in their Tegudon (Creed).
Similarly, the Moro people wanted to live by the teachings of Islam. While, indeed there are
fundamental differences in their views of how to live the good life within the Philippine
Republic, they are both guided by the polar star of self-determination. By this shared polar
star, the Teduray and Lambangian and the Bangsamoro should be natural and logical allies,
partners in the continuing struggle for autonomy and respectful of each other.
Having acknowledged the state of kalibugan, Prof. Bennagen stated that concrete steps
should be taken towards kalinaw. One is to carefully read through the texts that
constitute the documentary elements of kalibugan. He said that by the very nature of
foundational documents resulting from deliberative democratic bodies operating in the
larger context of power asymmetries, these texts may be said to be compromises. And
Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 4

compromises, if indeed truly democratic, signify deep respect for difference and diversity in
search of common values. He said that if one reads through carefully the BBL, along with the
various pronouncements and the Tegudon creed of the Tedurays and Lambangians, one will
find common grounds and shared values for building a sustainable regime of justice, peace
and development. This highly judicious textual readings, enlightened by the recognition of,
and deep respect for, difference and diversity, if properly lived, is a most potent force for
turning kalibugan into kalinaw.
Prof. Bennagen expressed that in the likely event of the protracted struggle to have the BBL
approved to the satisfaction of all stakeholders, it is necessary to set into motion processes
designed to inculcate respect for differences and diversity. There is a need to strengthen
and mobilize existing institutional arrangements, such as schools, faith-based organizations,
mass media particularly in teaching respect for human rights.
In ending, Prof. Bennagen asserted that national government agencies such as the NCIP and
the OSCC-ARMM, should act quickly to make up for lost time so as to build trust and
confidence in government institutions. They should expedite the processing of all CADT
applications, especially those that have been much-delayed by peace-seeking processes
such as the peace talks by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GPH) and the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). For a truly inclusive process, one concrete step is for
the GPH and the MILF to embrace the IPs/ICCs as legitimate equal partners in transforming
the soaring and lofty rhetoric of justice, peace and development into sustainable workable
institutions as well as real experiences of everyday life.

IPRA in the Bangsamoro: Constitutional and Legal Issues

Atty. Marlon Manuel, Professor and Bar Review lecturer at the Ateneo de Manila University
School of Law and the San Beda College of Law

tty. Marlon Manuel, national coordinator of Alternative Law Groups, Inc. focused on
the legal provisions of the proposed BBL. He identified four key IP-related issues
namely: identity, judicial affirmation, representation in the Bangsamoro parliament
and the inclusion of the IPRA.
On Identity. According to Atty. Manuel, one of the concerns in the proposed BBL is that it
seems to bias in favor of the Bangsamoro as far as the definition of the identity is
concerned. He clarifies that if one reads the provision more closely, he would find that it
does not really define who the Bangsamoro people should be. It only says that a group of
people can ascribe or can consider themselves as Bangsamoro. Nonetheless, it would
seem to be the default identity in the territory. In addition, because the term Bangsamoro is
also used to refer to the geographic area, there is a concern that the territory will be the
territory of the Bangsamoro, to the exclusion of the others. He said that this issue can be
easily remedied by simply amending the provision to say that it shall not be detrimental or
shall not prejudice the rights of indigenous peoples who do not consider themselves as part
of the Bangsamoro. The final formulation of the bill should consider and ensure that in
providing for the people of the autonomous region, there is no perceived preference or bias
for one majority group over many minority groups.

Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 5

On Judicial Affirmation of Title of Indigenous Peoples. Under the BBL, judicial affirmation
will be used by the Bangsamoro government as the means to recognize rights to land. Atty.
Manuel explained that this provision is already present in RA 9054, and was just adopted by
those championing the BBL. However, judicial affirmation is not mentioned at all in the
provisions of the IPRA. Instead, the IPRA uses the mode of self-delineation. IP groups argue
that the premise of judicial affirmation is that all lands are public lands and if such will be
imposed, it will undermine the Indigenous Peoples exercise of their right to have their
ancestral domains recognized and delineated, a right already guaranteed in the IPRA.
According to Atty. Manuel, the issue can be addressed by stating that for the ancestral
domains of the IPs, self-delineation should be adopted.
On Representation in the Bangsamoro Parliament. In the draft BBL, there will be 60 seats in
the Bangsamoro parliament. Only ten (10) percent of the seats will come from various
sectors. Of the 10 percent, two seats will be reserved for non-Moro indigenous communities
while another seat will be allotted for women. Non-Moro IP groups are clamoring for more
seats to represent their various communities and concerns. According to Atty. Manuel, the
composition of the parliament should be reflective of the diverse composition of the
population within the Bangsamoro territory.
On the inclusion of IPRA in the proposed BBL. According to Atty. Manuel, unfortunately the
IPRA is being pitted as major issue against the BBL, but it could have been a different law for
that matter. It could have been for instance, the Labor Code or the Juvenile Justice Law or
the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act. He pointed out that from a theoretical
perspective looking at the structure of powers, enumerating laws that already exist and
saying that they shall remain effective in the autonomous region, is an erosion of the
legislative powers of the regional assembly. It relegates their power to either copying or
improving on the laws passed by the national legislative body whereas the intent of the
grant of autonomy is precisely to recognize the distinction and to allow the diversity to
happen even in terms of policies. The legislative assembly of the region, he said, is expected
to come up with policies that are not seen in and in some cases may even be contradictory
to national policies. He said that even in the absence of the BBL, certain exceptions are
given in recognition of a different religious culture or belief. For instance, bigamy, or having
one spouse in the Philippines is considered a crime in the country but is allowed for
Muslims.
He pointed out that if the IPRA will remain effective in the Bangsamoro region, it cannot be
changed by the Bangsamoro Parliament. From the implementation point of view, that
means the NCIP, the main implementing agency of IPRA will have authority within the
Bangsamoro, even as the NCIP is not the most likeable national government agency not to
say the least.
Atty. Manuel noted that the concerns raised all have an underlying objective which is to
protect the rights of the IPs in the autonomous regions and the gains that have been
achieved under the IPRA. He said that one way of addressing this is to allow the
autonomous region to legislate on indigenous peoples rights by having a certain minimum.
Another way is to enumerate all the rights given by the Constitution, by the IPRA and by the

Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 6

UNDRIP and then state that the parliament of the Bangsamoro, cannot erode or cannot
diminish the rights that are already given to indigenous peoples.
Atty. Manuel pointed out that the concern is also a trust issue. IP groups are wary of
allowing the Bangsamoro parliament to legislate an enabling law protecting their rights
because the ARMM legislative assembly tasked with enacting an enabling law parallel to the
IPRA in the region failed to do so in its 20 years of existence. As such, they want a provision
in the BBL which will ensure that the rights already guaranteed under the IPRA will remain.
He suggested that another way of addressing the issue is to have a transitory provision in
the BBL stating that all national laws, including the IPRA, shall remain effective until the
Bangsamoro Parliament passes a law pertaining to the subject of the national laws. He
added that there should also be no conflict between having a Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Title (CADT) and being part of an autonomous region. It can be understood that
within the autonomous region, there are different ancestral domains under different CADTs
with their own customary systems in place.

OPEN FORUM
Question: Under the present system in the Philippines, natural resources belong to the State
(Regalian Doctrine) even if it is within the ancestral domain. Would that be so under the BBL
scheme?
Atty. Manuel: Yes, that is right. In fact, in the case where the constitutionality of the IPRA
was questioned, it was clarified that the ownership or the grant of rights to the ancestral
domain is separate from the issue concerning control over the natural resources. The claim
over ancestral domain is a separate entitlement. Just because the IPs were given the right
to ancestral domain, it doesnt follow that they have the liberty to use or exploit the natural
resources. The State can still enter into joint ventures, for example, for the exploration,
utilization, development of the natural resources in the area.
In the draft BBL, it is slightly different because it is not just about ownership or rights over
possession of a particular area. We are also talking about government authority. So it will
really depend on the division of the powers. And in the draft BBL, government
authority/powers vary. There will be powers reserved to the central government, or
exclusive to the Bangsamoro. There is also a division when it comes to natural resources and
the revenues from them. In the latest draft of the BBL, there is even a separation according
to the kind of minerals involved, for example. So there is a clear grant of authority to the
Bangsamoro Government over resources. The State retains supervision and control as
provided for in the Constitution, However, the formula, in effect, will be the State delegating
the authority to the Bangsamoro government.
Question: Does the proposed Bangsamoro Parliament have the power to determine what
laws should be superseded by BBL or do they have the power to amend existing laws in favor
of the interest of the objectives of the Bangsamoro?

Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 7

Atty. Manuel: The parliament of the Bangsamoro, consistent with the grant of powers in
the enumeration, can legislate. And as far as the territory is concerned, that legislation will
be followed even if they are considered different from national laws. That is the essence of
the grant of autonomy. If there are allegations that a particular parliamentary act goes
against the Constitution, or goes beyond the grant of legislative powers of the Bangsamoro
Parliament, there is always the Supreme Court to go to. It is possible that some of the laws
passed by the Bangsamoro Parliament will be nullified by the SC in the same way that some
laws passed by Congress have been nullified. The Supreme Court can therefore check the
abuses or potential abuses of the Bangsamoro Government, whether of the executive or
legislative.
Question: But can Congress check the Bangsamoro autonomous region? Can the Senate
summon or subpoena the officials of BBL?
Atty. Manuel: Yes, through its legislation or oversight function. It is even probably better to
set up a bicameral oversight committee to monitor at least the first few years of
implementation of the BBL. Moreover, the Senate can summon the officials of BBL possibly
through the Blue Ribbon Committee or other related committee, especially the Local
Government Committee. After all, the Senate is still the Senate of the Philippines. There is
no exemption given to the Bangsamoro Government from the operations of our checks and
balances mechanisms.
Question: Sections 1 and 2 , Article VI of the BBL state that the central government and the
Bangsamoro government shall adhere to and be guided by the principles of parity of esteem
and accepted norms of governance with each other, respecting the exercise of competencies
and exclusive powers. As such, oversight cannot be exercised by the Senate because there is
the adoption of this principle of parity of esteem. Is this correct?
Prof. Lingga: But there are many proposed mechanisms to settle/address such potential
conflicts, e.g. Inter-Governmental Relations (IGR) mechanism, Bangsamoro Parliament
Congress Forum.
Question: Under the proposed BBL, will the power over ancestral domain be exclusive or
concurrent?
Atty. Manuel: At present, it is concurrent; meaning both the Bangsamoro Government and
the National Government will have authority over ancestral domain. But this opens the
system to problems of inter-governmental coordination. When you say concurrent, what
do you mean by that?
There is the proposal of transitory provision expansion to cover national laws. Right now, in
the draft BBL, only the regional laws or those passed by ARMM Regional Legislative
Assembly are covered. What we are thinking is to expand that provision to include national
laws to avoid a vacuum. National laws shall be considered as effective even within the
enumerated exclusive powers, unless there is a clear exercise of that legislative power and
there is a law that passed which will, in effect, modify as far as the territory is concerned,
the application of that national law.
Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 8

Question: There is confusion on what the term Bangsamoro refers to. Should there be a
distinction between the Bangsamoro people from the people in the Bangsamoro?
Atty. Manuel: The term Bangsamoro in the proposed law is used in different contexts. It
can refer to the territory, the government itself, or the identity of the majority of the people
in the Bangsamoro area. However, it is important to clarify the provision concerning the
Bangsamoro identity because it tends to exclude the other tribes who do not consider
themselves as Bangsamoro. For me though, the term Bangsamoro is actually more
acceptable than Muslim Mindanao because it has a religious connotation. So the question
now is why are we against the milder term Bangsamoro when in fact, we allowed Muslim
Mindanao, an even stronger assertion, to be included in the Constitution?
Question: It must be noted that the biggest IPs within the Muslim population are the
Maranaos, the Maguindanaons and the Tausugs. The MNLF is Tausug-dominated while the
MILF is Maguindanaon-led. Assuming that Congress will pass the BBL, what will be the
dynamics of the three biggest IPs within the Muslim population?
Prof. Lingga: In the proposed BBL, a Bangsamoro, and not an MILF government will be
established. Leaders will be elected by the Bangsamoro people and a ministerial form of
government will be created to ensure that powers are distributed and not monopolized by
one big group. What is proposed in the BBL is to have a parliamentary system which is partybased and not tribal-based.
Question: What if the Tedurays, the Manobos and the other IPs opt not to be part of the
Bangsamoro? Will it be possible for them to assert their own identities and clamor for
autonomy?
Atty. Manuel: The clear mechanism for inclusion in the Bangsamoro is the plebiscite, which
is based on the local government unit concerned. The decision to be part of the
autonomous is not based on ancestral domain. As to the possibility of having an
autonomous region within the autonomous region, it is possible through a statute to be
crafted by the Bangsamoro Parliament. That is one arena for advocacy for IPs to assert their
self-determination within the Bangsamoro region, but that will be another layer.
Question: Of the 13 ethno-linguistic groups in Mindanao, how many are non-Muslims? How
many are against the Bangsamoro as an identity, as a cultural or political identity and not
really a religious identity?
Prof. Lingga: Of the 13 ethno-linguistic groups, it is the Badjaos who are not largely
Islamized. There are groups now who are Islamized but majority are still animists.
Question: Why are there reserved seats for non-Moros in the Bangsamoro Parliament when
everybody is Bangsamoro?
Prof. Lingga: The idea of reserved seats is to guarantee that all sectors are represented in
the Parliament. If it is done by election, minority groups have small chance to win. All
Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 9

residents in the area or the territory of the Bangsamoro have equal rights and privileges.
Bangsamoro is recognition of identity. There is no political and economic power attached
to it.
Question: Would it help if the immediate delineation of ancestral domains is conducted
before a regional law is enacted?
Atty. Bacani: The delineation of ancestral domains is just a matter of enforcing the IPRA.
The ARMM regional assembly has actually acknowledged that the delineation of ancestral
domains is applicable in the ARMM. However, if the national government accepts the
argument that doing so will create new facts on the ground and will suppress the peace
process, then that delineation will not really push through. I have long suggested that the
MILF, the IPs and the NCIP, sit together and agree on identification of the territories. You
dont even have to call it delineation, call it identification. What is important is that there be
a real dialogue on the ground on this matter. So, it actually boils down to this, delineate now
and do not put IPRA in the BBL. If you dont delineate now, then you have to put IPRA.
Question: It has been suggested that we refer to the IPRA or the UNDRIP or the Constitution
as a minimum when the Legislative Parliamentary Assembly of the Bangsamoro crafts a law
pertaining to ancestral domain, for instance. Isnt that in essence, imposing the same
restraint and going against self-rule or autonomy?
Atty. Manuel: It really depends on the formulation. One formulation can be as strong as the
IPRA shall remain effective. Another option is to stipulate that the rights of indigenous
peoples already provided under the IPRA shall not be diminished. There is a difference
between these two. You are not adopting in toto or in its totality the IPRA implementing
mechanism but you are recognizing the rights enumerated or provided in the IPRA. Given
the issues that we now have, there is a way of formulating how to refer to IPRA without
being interpreted as diminishing the rights of the Bangsamoro. The Bangsamoro Parliament
eventually can legislate its own. It is even highly possible that the Bangsamoro Parliament
can come up with better or more practicable implementing mechanisms compared to that
of IPRA. But of course, due to historical antecedents, this is not viewed favorably.
Atty. Bacani: Fundamental to this issue is the concept of ancestral domain. According to
Prof. Lingga, there is only one ancestral domain in the Bangsamoro and that is the
Bangsamoro Ancestral Domain. The MILF has been consistent with this. Even in the
negotiations, when the government is insisting on ancestral domains, with s, they really
stood their ground. However, when you look at our Constitution now, the provision on
ancestral domain does not refer to the Bangsamoro ancestral domain. The ancestral
domain is shared by the IPs. Another issue is who are the IPs? Who are the Bangsamoro?
When you look at the definition, it is very clear that all IPs are Bangsamoro. Hence the issue
becomes an issue of identification of territory and has resulted in the confusion even during
the crafting of the BBL.
Now if you proceed from that premise that there is only one ancestral domain and you
make IPRA applicable in the Bangsamoro, what will prevent the Maguindanaons, the
Iranuns, the Tausugs to petition for the recognition of their ancestral domain? The whole
concept of Bangsamoro might collapse. Then again, we should also consider that these
Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 10

issues with the IPRA may simply be symptoms or manifestations of a more fundamental
problem which is the issue of self-determination of minorities including the non-Moro.
So now the question becomes whether our legal or constitutional framework can
accommodate this kind of narrative. Is this kind of construct acceptable within the purview
of the Constitution?
Prof. Bennagen: Unless you are clear about the foundational values of the IPs identities
that are involved, problems will arise. Once you adopt the identity of Moro, it dismantles
the indigenous-based identities. These identities carry with them certain rights. The identity
you claim determines the corresponding set of rights you have.
Question: Many of the residents in Barangay Rogongon, Iligan City are interested to join the
proposed Bangsamoro but are confused on whether the BBL will really be the solution to
their problems. How would you take them away from their state of confusion?
Prof. Bennagen: The beauty of kalibugan as a concept is that it allows you to interrogate
yourself. Recognition of confusion is the beginning of wisdom. Once you recognize and
embrace that you are confused, the next step is to ask yourself: Why I am confused? The
Rogongon are the descendants of Higaunon and Maranao. Their hybridity translates into a
kind of socio-cultural matrix, out of which is they are able to make certain choices. For
instance, it provides the matrix for a multiplicity of legal system within which they can work.
So they combine, for instance, aspects of Higaunon justice system as well as Muslim. Their
recognition of kalibugan is the next step towards resolution as conscious human agent.

SYNTHESIS
Prof. Ed Tayao
Executive Director, LOGODEF

n his synthesis of the presentations, Prof. Tayao recapitulated four major points
discussed in the RTD. He said that: a) there is only one ancestral domain in the
Bangsamoro, and that explains the sibling rivalry; b) kalibugan has something to do
with changing social reality, and its a manner by which people respond to the natural and
social environment; c.) there is always a link between resources and identity; and (d) the
evolution of Moro definition reflects the changing realities from one particular historical
period to another.
In closing, Prof. Tayao highlighted the importance of institutions. He concluded that unless
there are working institutions that would implement laws effectively, the question and
problem of trust between different Filipino ethnic groups will never be resolved.

Prepared by the Senate Economic Planning Office

Page 11