This report was prepared by the Committee on Indigenous Cultural Communities and
4. Atty. Basilio Wandag, past
Commissioner and past Executive Indigenous Peoples of the House of Representatives.
Director, NCIP;
5. Mr. Dominador Gomez, NCIP Committee Chairman Nancy A. Catamco opened the roundtable
Commissioner; discussion. Vice Chairman Jose T. Panganiban introduced the participating
indigenous people (IP) guests. Other committee members present were
6. Atty. Norberto Navarro, NCIP Rep. Amihilda J. Sangcopan, Rep. Wilter Wee Palma, and Rep. Allen
Commissioner;
Jesse C. Mangaoang.
7. Atty. Reuben Lingating, chair of the
government’s IP peace panel, Office of the Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez also attended this meeting.
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
(OPAPP); and past NCIP Chairman;
Fr. Eliseo Mercado, Jr., IAG Senior Policy Adviser, facilitated the ensuing
8. Ms Zenaida Pawid, past NCIP discussion.
Chairperson, current Commissioner
Editor: Benedicto R. Bacani Associate Editor: Ramie P. Toledo Lay-out Artist: Hazelyn A. Gaudiano
DISCUSSION 1: Indigenous Self- Determination Under a Federal Philippines 3) the IPRA should remain in effect despite a change in government; and
Fr. Mercado and Prof. Bennagen presented a brief overview of IP rights. Both luminaries visited the IP 4) the ancestral domains will never revert back to the State.
historical narrative behind the struggle of IPs for self-determination, beginning at the arrival of the Spanish
conquistadors, up to the present. The Spanish occupation premiered the struggle of the IPs against In any charter change, important provisions in the IPRA should be included. Atty. Lingating said that federalism
enslavement and oppression, exacerbated by the enculturation of the Spanish word “moro”, and the term should preserve IP rights and enshrine them in the new constitution. He observed that, although the recognition
“tribos independientes”. The American occupation carried on the subjugation through its policy of integration of IP rights has slowly evolved, strengthened and expanded at each successive constitution, it is only IPRA
of the so-called “non-Christian tribes”. IPs have always opposed integration and mainstreaming, seeing that that fully recognizes these rights. He added that the policies of the State should consider ancestral domains
assimilation has been a tool to further divest them of their resources, culture and territories. as native titles, and to include this principle in the new Bill of Rights, along with other IPRA provisions. He saw
the need for IP representation in all the processes, including the consultative commission.
Self-determination, according to Prof. Bennagen, is already enshrined in the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act (IPRA). However, without its operationalization and genuine application in the quest of IPs for genuine Commissioner Mansayagan expressed apprehensions over the precarious state of IPs in a federal system.
autonomy, practicing their justice system, forming their own organizations and tribal barangays, etc., federalism NCIP’s failure to come up with a straightforward definition of “indigenous people” indicates a deficient set of
will fall short of its goals and vision. categories that firmly defines just what makes a person “indigenous”. There is still a long way to overcoming
the imposed identity foisted on us by the colonial masters, both past and present. This artificial identity
Prof. Bennagen pointed to the need to build on the gains of IPs through the centuries, particularly the four (4) intrudes on actualizing the “indigenous identity”, collective rights, and integrity of IP traditions. Commissioner
bundles of rights of the IPRA. He underlined the fact that IPs have remained the guardians of biodiversity in Mansayagan stated that the Philippines should learn from the experiences of IPs who have been practicing
their ancestral lands, having traditionally protected the environment since time immemorial. He believed that proto-federal form of government since pre-colonial times.
their traditional conservation systems should be harnessed to minimize the impact of climate change.
Rep. Catamco raised concerns in regard to the government’s capacity to establish an IP state. She also inquired
On his part, Atty. Andolana discussed his experience in Congress in formulating the IPRA, or Republic Act 8371, as to the viability of a special administrative region vis-à-vis IP state. Further, she expressed reservations on
of which he was the main proponent. He drew parallelisms between the struggles waged by the Samaritans the future of ICCs/IPs in Mindanao and the Visayas, given that IPs there are disparate and disconnected from
of Palestine and the Philippine IP resistance to invasion and colonization. Their separate but analogous each other, as compared to the more unified block of IPs in the Cordilleras.
experiences provided the model for the IPRA, a law founded on respect and recognition of “cultural identity”.
In response to the query by Rep. Sangcopan on the geographical locations of all ICCs/IPs in the Philippines,
In regard to the issue of federalism, Prof. Bennagen expressed his disquiet over the proposed constitutional Commissioner Gomez confirmed the existence of a map locating all delineated ancestral domains. The
shift. A federal form of government might still not be the answer to the issues plaguing the IPs, such as land map, however, does not indicate the areas under application for CADTs. He mentioned that the Philippine
titling, recognition of ancestral domains, and the fact that IP rights already contained in the IPRA need further Indigenous Peoples Ethnographies (PIPEs) project of the NCIP, which aims to gather data on the welfare and
enhancement and firming up. the way of life of all the ICCs/IPs in the country and which would include an all-encompassing map, failed to
take off due to budget cuts.
Commissioner Wandag recounted that in the conferences and summits on the proposed change to a federal
system that he attended, the IPs have been vocal in their support for federalism. They drafted and submitted Rep. Panganiban requested Prof. Bennagen to walk the committee members through his experience as
various resolutions declaring their intent to collaborate with the government, recognizing that the State has Commissioner for the Constitutional Commission, explaining that his involvement will help to strategically
the capacity and political will to make significant change happen for IPs. They presented certain aspects that map out the next Constitutional Assembly having a representative who will become the voice for the IPs. In
should be factored in should federalism materialize, namely: response, Prof. Bennagen made mention of the original plan to bring in sectoral representation, an idea that
was later quashed, with the Commission deciding on a neutral person to represent the IP sector. Given his
1) there must be an IP representative in the Constitutional Commission that will draft the anthropologic expertise, he sat as the IP sectoral representative.
federal charter;
Rep. Palma wanted to be clarified as to the end goal of the roundtable discussion: (1) Is the Committee
2) the current rights protecting ICCs/IPs already enshrined in the Constitution cannot be going to push for a separate state for the IPs; or (2) Is the Committee moving towards integrating the IPs
reduced or rendered obscure; with the State that will be formed eventually under the federal system. Rep. Palma prompted the committee
Timuay Jimid Mansayagan admitted that the topic of self-determination is difficult for IPs because they have Chair Catamco gave her closing remarks, and thanked the Speaker himself for calling the roundtable
no concept of it; parallelizing it to asking a fish what water is. The issue of federalism isn’t an issue with discussion. She revealed that there are already initial plans in place, but they also wanted to hear from
them, because their territory is clear to them. If federalism is implemented, all that is needed is to recognize the communities, and of course the experts. She shared that she is also a member of the Committee on
their territory. They don’t need any system, because they already have their own. He shared the problem Constitutional Amendments, to ensure that the IP provisions in the 1987 Constitution will be included in
of using phrases like “minor tribe” and “major tribe”, which they view as a form of discrimination. The term this new constitution. Although there is still a lot to be done with federalism, there already exists the IPRA,
“IP” is relatively new, and they are used to be called “minorities”, a term that has made them subject of which is a very big help to the IPs’ cause. If Region IX pushes through with the summit, she said that it is
discrimination. For him, it is the majority that decides the fate of the minorities, and it will be the majority that necessary to come out with a position paper. There have been proposals that have already been read on First
decides their place in the federal system. He recommended the demarcation of the original territory of the IPs. Reading, and the plebiscite might be in October given enough time. She also announced that Fr. Mercado
He stated that they filed their unified claim for ancestral domain in 2004, with no progress. In 2007, they filed has committed the IAG to work hand-in-hand with this Committee all the way, and that Atty. Jing Corpuz will
a quasi-judicial complaint against the NCIP for the intrusion of a banana company into their territory, and to be included in the creation and drafting of the proposals, just like she did with the Bangsamoro Basic Law
this day, justice is nowhere to be found. consultations. Lastly, she urged all tribal leaders, to always voice out their concerns about the fate of the IPs
in face of the change to federalism.
Wilborne Danda agreed with the shift to federalism, though he does not speak on behalf of his tribe in Zamboanga
Sibugay. He announced that they will be having a summit in Region IX, and hoped the Commissioner can Prof. Bennagen shared how an IP provision made its way into the Constitution. Before, there was context; the
finalize the proposal so he can make a representation with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. He is also glad commissioners wanted change, and the situation was very euphoric, the country coming off from a dictatorship.
that their congressman is present, to whom he can relay their financial problem. He also said that Batasan was very open to lobbyists, with lots of talks, dialogues, and communication.
Under the framework of developing a solidarity network, he expressed high hopes for full communication and
Rep. Palma states that he has no problem with providing funding. He asked that he be given the time and the greater interaction that includes the church and the academe, particularly in the talks of land rights. He also
exact date of the summit, and he shall accommodate their request. mentioned using social media to further the IP agenda.
Wilborne Danda continued that they have no problems in Zamboanga Sibugay. He calls on all leaders present, Rep. Catamco mentioned having suggested to the Committee the creation of a website, which can be done
that if there are any shortcomings, it is the leaders who are partly to blame. He encouraged them that if they in partnership with the NCIP.
don’t have the guts to approach the political leaders, they will gain nothing.
Former Chair Pawid added that between the implementation of the IPRA up to the present, the transition has
Rep. Sangcopan asked the resource persons on their opinions on having tribal barangays. Chair Catamco not been guarded well. She calls for firm vigilance during the transition period whatever form of government
said that it would be better discussed in another committee hearing, since more time is needed for such a be decided on in order to effectively launch any new system.
broad topic. Prof. Bennagen explained that in Article X of the 1987 Constitution, authority comes from the
central government, then to the LGUs, then down to the barangay, which means there is no measure of Chair Catamco ended by thanking all the commissioners. She reminded them that in all their summits, it is
independence or autonomy for the barangay because this is linked to the authority of the higher political important to come out with position papers from the IPs. She reiterated Prof. Bennagen’s earlier call for a
units. Chair Catamco added that this will be discussed in the Committee on Local Government, not in this solidarity network. And finally, she thanked Atty. Lingating, who, despite being with the OPAPP, also works
committee, since there is a lot involved here, and all they want is to jump-start the discussion on federal IP with her office and the Committee as a consultant for IP concerns and issues, especially in drafting the
states or special administrative IP regions. Atty. Andolana says that for existing areas covered by CADT or provisions needed in amending the Constitution.
Views and opinions expressed in IAG publications are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the Institute for
Autonomy and Governance or the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
info@iag.org.ph
www. iag.org.ph