IPRA a milestone legislation: gift to the Cordillera forged by the Cordillerans

Twenty years ago, a landmark piece of legislation was ratified in the Philippines. Said legislation put us on the
world map as one of the first nations putting forward the interest of the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) while consciously
striving further towards our nations development. This piece of legislation guaranteed the rights of IPs to
ancestral domain, self-governance and empowerment, human rights, and cultural integrity.

And on its 20th year, we look back to its journey. Maintaining hindsight of the past, as we the IPs, continue to
aspire for that ever elusive social justice which the landmark legislation sought to deliver. Republic Act 8371 or
known as the Indigenous Peoples Right Act of 1997 pioneered a radical dogma into our Philippine legal system that
seemed to be not consonance with the highest law of the land the 1987 Constitution.

This is as far as principles on Sate ownership of land and natural resources is concern. Back and forth IPRA was
deliberated only to meet a stalemate vote at the end which favoured heavily the IPs maintaining IPRA to be
constitutional.

The rich history of the Cordillera struggle became the beacon of our highest magistrates, the ones who voted the
affirmation of IPRA, in arguing constitutionality of IPRA. The true spirit of IPRA cannot be appreciated and
construed without reviewing the struggles of the IPs in view of their distinct sociology and the labyrinths of its
history. Our magistrates decision upholding the constitutionality of IPRA became a legal precedent that forms part
of the laws of the land which the NCIP espouses till this day.

How IPs became squatters to their own land?

Long before our colonizers docked our shores, an existing educational, economic and socio-political system among
the natives was already in place. Communal ownership of land is the system being applied by natives to vast lands
which they share to their fellows collectively. Private ownership on the other is defined through ones capacity of
tillage.

When the Spanish came and staked their flags to our grounds, they imposed the feudalistic policy of Jura Regalia,
a concept of land ownership wherein they declared all lands they conquered belongs to the King of Spain. The
capacity of the State to own or acquire property is the state's power of dominium. This was the foundation for the
early Spanish decrees embracing the feudalistic approach. This feudalistic approach became a legal concept of land
ownership in our country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas.

The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive
patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish Government took charge of distributing the lands by
issuing royal grants and concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian. Private land titles could only be
acquired from the government either by purchase or by the various modes of land grant from the Crown.

For centuries, natives mostly in the mountains of the north and the south have warded off entry from the Spanish
colonizers. Thus, boasting our claim that we were never conquered making us Indigenous.

Institutionalized non recognition of IP land rights

The Regalian doctrine was further enshrined in the 1935 Constitution. One of the fixed and dominating objectives
of the 1935 Constitutional Convention was the nationalization and conservation of the natural resources of the
country. There was an overwhelming sentiment in the Convention in favour of the principle of state ownership of
natural resources and the adoption of the Regalian doctrine.

State ownership of natural resources was seen as a necessary starting point to secure recognition of the state's
power to control their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization. The delegates to the Constitutional
Convention very well knew that the concept of State ownership of land and natural resources was introduced by
the Spaniards. This however, they were not certain whether it was continued and applied by the Americans. To
remove all doubts, the Convention approved the provision in the Constitution affirming the Regalian doctrine.

In a nutshell, what this tells us is that during the Spanish era, All lands belong to the Crown/King. When the
Americans came they did so little to amend this principle of land ownership where they impliedly affirmed the
feudalistic narrative of the Regalian Doctrine stating that All lands belong to the State. It is clear that recognition
of Indigenous people claim to land ownership was set aside.

Be that as it may, our framers of the 1987 Constitution somewhat gave us the chance to correct these injustice.
They have provided us non executing provisions, back by centuries of injustice, as our hammers and anvils in
forging a legislation in rectifying ills bestowed upon IPs, who only did was to gallantly practice what was prudent
during times of colonization resist.

Cordilleran resistance before IPRA

So by now at this juncture, by connecting these dots of our rich history, we can already grasped the reasons why
IPs of Cordillera resisted to the so-called development projects from the World Band founded Chico Dams in
Kalinga, to the vast logging concession of the Cellophil Resource Corporation in Abra. This was in response to the
late Dictator, Marcos statement; that the IPs are the ones to sacrifice for the greater majority. The word sacrifice
was a loose term used in placed of word surrender.

Here we see how Cordillerans value land. One cannot speak of the Cordillera struggle without mentioning the
names of our martyrs; Ama Macliing Dulang who was gunned down in blood, and Padre Dungoc, Dulags
companion during the assassination, who managed to escape them later joined the armed resistance.

Armed resistance have been waged in the region, as in fact a long and burning, sustained one is still being waged
simply because of the monopolization power, leading to the exploitation of resources, all benefits which ought to
have been shared with or enjoyed by the people.
Land is life, were the immortal words of Ama Macliing Dulag. Indeed, land is where life springs from and it is
where we will lay to rest. We dont own the land; it is the land that owns us. Issues affecting Cordillerans from then
and now can be rooted to this principle as to how we love and value our land.

Attached to our passion to defend our land, is our equal vigilance in shielding our rich culture away from
commercialization and bastardization which the ever watchful eyes of NCIP-CAR observe.

What is land to IPs anyway?

Land is the central element of the IPs existence. There is no traditional concept of permanent, individual, land
ownership. Among the Igorots, ownership of land more accurately applies to the tribal right to use the land or to
territorial control. The people are the secondary owners or stewards of the land and that if a member of the tribe
ceases to work, he loses his claim of ownership, and the land reverts to the beings of the spirit world who are its
true and primary owners. Under the concept of "trusteeship," the right to possess the land does not only belong to
the present generation but the future ones as well.

Customary law on land rests on the traditional belief that no one owns the land except the gods and spirits, and
that those who work the land are its mere stewards. Customary law has a strong preference for communal
ownership, which could either be ownership by a group of individuals or families who are related by blood or by
marriage, or ownership by residents of the same locality who may not be related by blood or marriage.

The system of communal ownership under customary laws draws its meaning from the subsistence and highly
collectivized mode of economic production. The Kalingas, for instance, who are engaged in team occupation like
hunting, foraging for forest products, and farming found it natural that forest areas, orchards, pasture and burial
grounds should be communally-owned. For the Kalingas, everybody has a common right to a common economic
base. Thus, as a rule, rights and obligations to the land are shared in common.

Although highly bent on communal ownership, customary law on land also sanctions individual ownership. The
residential lots and terrace rice farms are governed by a limited system of individual ownership. It is limited
because while the individual owner has the right to use and dispose of the property, he does not possess all the
rights of an exclusive and full owner as defined under our Civil Code. Under Kalinga customary law, the alienation
of individually-owned land is strongly discouraged except in marriage and succession and except to meet sudden
financial needs due to sickness, death in the family, or loss of crops.

Land titles do not exist in the indigenous peoples' economic and social system. The concept of individual land
ownership under the civil law is alien to them. Inherently colonial in origin, our national land laws and
governmental policies frown upon indigenous claims to ancestral lands. Communal ownership is looked upon as
inferior, if not inexistent.

Reconciling IP land ownership to the Regalian Doctrince

Recognizing the contrasting views land ownership defined by IPRA against the Regalian Doctrine, our highest
Supreme Court magistrates turned to the landmark case of Mateo Carino VS Insular Government in settling
doubts. The issue among many others, if whether or not, IPs claim to land ownership through ancestral land title
and ancestral domain is contrary to the concept of Regalian Doctrine thus unconstitutional.

The right of ownership and possession of the IPs to their ancestral domains is held under the indigenous concept
of ownership. This concept maintains the view that ancestral domains are the IPs private but community property.
It is private simply because it is not part of the public domain. But its private character ends there. The ancestral
domain is owned in common by the IPs and not by one particular person.

Communal rights to the land are held not only by the present possessors of the land but extends to all generations
of the IPs, past, present and future, to the domain. This is the reason why the ancestral domain must be kept
within the IPs themselves. The domain cannot be transferred, sold or conveyed to other persons. It belongs to the
IPs as a community.

Ancestral lands are also held under the indigenous concept of ownership. The lands are communal. These lands,
however, may be transferred subject to the following limitations: (a) only to the members of the same IPs; (b) in
accord with customary laws and traditions; and (c) subject to the right of redemption of the IPs for a period of 15
years if the land was transferred to a non-member of the IPs.
Following the constitutional mandate that "customary law govern property rights or relations in determining the
ownership and extent of ancestral domains," the IPRA, by legislative fiat, introduces a new concept of ownership.
This is a concept that has long existed under customary law.

To be sure, the indigenous concept of ownership exists even without a paper title. The CADT is merely a "formal
recognition" of native title. This is clear from Section 11 of the IPRA, to wit:
"Sec. 11. Recognition of Ancestral Domain Rights.- The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral 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, which shall recognize the title of
the concerned ICCs/IPs over the territories identified and delineated."

Lets all note that Ancestral lands and domains where private since time immemorial thus cannot be subject under
Regalian Doctrine whose scope is limited only to Public Lands.

NCIP-CAR employing IPRA

Giving recognition to IPs to their rights to their ancestral land is one of many functions which IPRA has bestowed
upon the NCIP. Here are some of many grants being administered by NCIP which public needs to know.

We long envisioned that the IPs, namely in the Cordillera, will be at par with their neighbouring low land brothers
and sister. With this, NCIP-CAR, through IPRA, give scholarship grants to IP students in the tertiary level education.
And more just a monetary grant, this Education and Assistance Program (AEP) of NCIP aims to empower and
develop students not only inside their respective schools but also outside its walls through seminars and trainings
spearheaded by NCIP.

EAP Scholars after graduation are encouraged to go back to communities and share their wisdom to their fellows,
whom are deprived of the privileges of education. Thousands graduated because of this grant. So many that the
person beside you is one them.

NCIP-CAR also have certified thousands of Certificate of Confirmation (COCC) applications filed by Cordilleran,
mostly graduates and job seekers. They were then deprived of their dreams of serving the people by the joining
the Philippine National Police, who requires a specific height requirement. Their application for COC before the
NCIP-CAR tantamounts to a height waiver. Thus, allowing them to join the Force without the said height
requirement. The height waiver also extends to all profession they want to enter and not only in PNP.

A lot was certified by NCIP-CAR to IPs. And known to many, prolific and valiant police officers in the country
belongs to the IP sector, mainly in the Cordillera.