Engr. Jones Conception G. Binwag Atty. Roman Antonio

The FPIC team conducted the FPIC activities according to the community's requests, not strictly following the Director's order. The community wanted a wider decision making process that involved all community members, so the FPIC team scheduled additional meetings and activities like MOA negotiations and signings. This allowed more community members to provide input and ensured the community's decision was communally made. Due to a leadership conflict, all 20 IP settlements were consulted to avoid misunderstandings. An attached resolution from the community supports the FPIC team's actions.

Uploaded by

Carlo Caramto

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

56 views

Engr. Jones Conception G. Binwag Atty. Roman Antonio

Uploaded by

Carlo Caramto

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 2

Explanation the ADO & LAO Observation/comments.

(The Memorandum order of then Director Ruben S. Bastero was to conduct the FPIC mandatory
activities under Section 24 of the present guidelines; however the FPIC activities were
conducted under Section 21-22 not followed. The FPIC Team to submit an explanation why the
order was not followed).
The FPIC team humbly maintains that it followed the order. In fact the two processes
enunciated were strictly followed, it’s just that on the first community assembly, the
community said their decision making process will be community wide. The community will
submit a resolution making known their decision. Hence during the decision making on the
second assembly, the community asked for another schedule to decide because the leaders
accordingly who attended will relay the information they had gained during the presentation of
the proponent. Other community members failed to attend because of the IATF protocols.
Thence, the leaders who attended requested another date for the submission of the
community decision. Likewise, the other days included were the MOA negotiation and MOA
signing, these activities were as important as well as all other activities so we have to scheduled
it on different dates in order to maximize the opportunity of our ICC/IPS to get what is just for
them. Under section 24 MOA negotiations and MAO signing was not included so these we
believe are the dates and other activities added. All were for the benefit and wide opportunity
for the ICC/IPs to be informed and be given leeway to decide the project as community. Most
importantly, community was given enough time to communally decide on the benefits to be
given to them.
This is to certify that due to the conflict on leadership in the ancestral domain of the Ayta
Mag-Antsi of CADT 025-A, the community request that all the IP communities should be
consulted so that they will be aware with the FPIC process to be conducted within their
ancestral domain. The FPIC Team in consideration with the current situation of the IP
community on leadership conflict processed it as per request of the IPs wherein all the 20 IP
settlements were been well represented during the assemblies of the FPIC process to avoid
misunderstanding between and among the IP Communities.
Hereto attached is their community request through a resolution for your reference.
On the complaint of Mr. Oscar Rivera, he tendered such letter to humper the MOA signing of
the 4 permittee because the FPIC of Mr. Rading Sibal his permittee applicant is not progressing.