UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

PROGRAM ON ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT

POLICY BRIEF ISSN 2619-7278 (PRINT) • ISSN 2619-7286 (ONLINE)

UP CIDS POLICY BRIEF 2022–14

Recommendations for the Indigenous People’s

Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997:
Recentering Indigenous Communities and Organizations1
Jose Monfred Sy1 and Ryan Joseph Martinez,2 with the Ayta Mag-indi community in Porac, Pampanga; Talaandig indigenous
women leaders of Maramag, Bukidnon; and students from Lumad Bakwit School

The struggle for land continues to be a theme in Despite its advances in introducing reforms,
human-rights-based conflicts in the Philippines. In definitions, and institutions, the landmark legislation
2020, the country was once more named the most has taken the long route in recognizing Indigenous
dangerous in Asia for environmental defenders—for peoples’ liberties and struggles (Bello 2020; Doyle
the eighth consecutive year (Enano 2021; Fronda, 2020). For instance, the process of recognizing
Garafil, and Dulce 2020; PAN Asia Pacific 2019).
ancestral lands has remained perennially withheld
Global Witness (2021) ranked the Philippines
by the technical and process-laden distribution of
as third in the number of documented land- and
Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT),
resource-related killings amidst the global pandemic
which undermines the core rights bundled by the
in 2021. According to the report, over half of the
law and strips Indigenous communities of prior
attacks are tied to the defenders’ opposition to
protection against abuses.
mining, logging, agribusiness, and dam projects in
indigenous lands.
This policy brief examines the delineation of
The Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) ancestral domain rights within the context of the
of 1997, or the Republic Act No. 8371, sought to IPRA and several complementary laws. Furthermore,
protect Indigenous peoples (IPs) and Indigenous this paper acknowledges the “superpositions”—the
cultural communities (ICCs) in line with the 1987 presence and absence—of several key concepts in
Philippine Constitution. It emphasized “self- the IPRA with respect to its implementation and
governance” and “empowerment” over their corresponding assertion of IP leaders and advocacy
ancestral land, social justice and human rights, and organizations.
“cultural integrity” as core rights—bundled for IPs
and ICCs under one legislation.

1 This policy brief is part of the study, "Examining Ancestral Domain Rights within the Context of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act,"
under the Policy Studies for Political and Administrative Reforms (PSPAR) project, which is funded by the GAA 2021 FCR Project: January
to December 2021. The funding of this project was coursed through, and administered by, the University of the Philippines Center for
Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS).
2 Jose Monfred C. Sy ( [email protected]) is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Filipino and Philippine Literature, University of
the Philippines Diliman. He is currently a Project Leader for the Program on Alternative Development (AltDev) of the University of the
Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS).
3 Ryan Joseph Martinez ([email protected]) works as a Senior Project Assistant for the UP CIDS Program on Alternative Development.
He is currently finishing his coursework as a part-time student in the Master of Arts in Sociology at the Department of Sociology, University
of the Philippines Diliman.
 2 R E C OM MENDAT IO N S F O R T HE IN D IG EN O US PE O PL E ’ S R I G HTS A C T (I PR A ) O F 19 9 7

The Institutional and Legal Framework of the President, as mandated by the implementing rules
the IPRA and regulations of the IPRA.

The passage of the IPRA in 1997 meant that

The Political Project of the IPRA and Its
[t]he Philippines became the first country Contradictions
in Asia that recognized the struggles and
During the presidential term of Fidel V.
aspirations of its Indigenous peoples by way
Ramos, the IPRA was finally signed into law on
of a legal instrument that spelled in black and
29 October 1997. Ramos dubbed the passage “a
white an acknowledgement of their historical
triumph of political will” (quoted in Headland
marginalization and provided access to
1999, 2) in recognition of Congress’s effort to pass
mechanism and redress. (Alamon 2017, 187)
the law. However, the IPRA was enacted alongside
The law took shape from the framework of controversial and conflicting laws, which to this
the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The Constitution date hinders the full realization of IPRA. There is
differentiates itself from prior constitutions by a prominent case of legal jurisdictional and ethical
referencing IPs and ICCs in eight separate sections. conflict between IPRA and the Philippine Mining Act
This marks the defining moment of a shift in the of 2005 on several issues, which shall be discussed in
Philippine state policy on IPs, from assimilation the succeeding sections of the article.
to recognition and protection (Puno 2000). The
IPRA adopted the majority of these sections in the For Ramos in 1997, there is a noticeable absence
Constitution into its own framework. Article II, of the role played by civil society and Indigenous
Section 22 states the policy to “recognize and protect peoples’ organizations towards its passage. In
the rights of IPs;” Article XII, Section 4 declares the fact, the undying effort of Indigenous peoples’
obligation to protect the rights to ancestral domains organizations (IPOs), nongovernment organizations
(Molintas 2004). (NGOs), and advocacy groups such as the Cordillera
Peoples’ Alliance (CPA), Coalition for Indigenous
The IPRA was always meant to be a Peoples’ Rights and Ancestral Domain (CIPRAD),
comprehensive law. Not only did it introduce Koalisyon para sa Karapatan ng Katutubo (KKK),
advanced concepts of Indigenous peoples and their and Katutubong Samahan ng Pilipinas (KASAPI),
rights at the forefront; it also aimed to operationalize were not given recognition (Rico 2007). These
their complexities. The enactment of the law marked organizations, among others, played a crucial role
an initial step in correcting past historical injustices and provided critical contributions in the entire
and exclusion of IPs by recognizing, protecting, legislative process of its implementation.
and promoting Indigenous communities’ right to
ancestral domains and lands; the right to “self- By the late 1990s, there arose intense work
governance” and “empowerment,” “social justice for the implementation of the IPRA. However,
and human rights;” and the right to “cultural its implementing rules and regulations (IRR) and
integrity” (IPRA 1997). the processes it prescribed divided the Indigenous
movement in the Philippines. Those in favor of the
Moreover, the IPRA was meant to replace IPRA opted to collaborate with the state, while
existing institutions that were based on Western others adopted a confrontational attitude. These
prejudice and which were targeting the non-Christian attitudes recognized that even after the independence
population prior to former president Corazon of former colonies, Indigenous communities that
Aquino’s oath of office (Domingo and Manejar resisted colonial domination were forced to negotiate
2020). The IPRA oversaw the establishment of the with a dominant society represented by a nation-
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) state with its own framework of land ownership and
as an implementing agency that would administer all distribution (Inguanzo and Wright 2016, 9). This
issues and concerns of IPs and ICCs. Currently, the paper zeroes in on two primary issues where conflicts
NCIP is an independent agency under the Office of emerged.
 UP CI DS P O L I C Y BR I EF 2 02 2 -14 3

The Superposition of Ancestral Domain services and welfare provisioning makes them even
Rights within the IPRA more vulnerable to such exploitation (Alamon 2017).

One of the key contributions of IPRA is its The evidence- and document-laden process of
exhaustive articulation of ancestral domains in certification imposed on IPs reveals one contradiction
the legal text (Candelaria 2012). In fact, it is more between the rationale and reality of IPRA. For IPs,
advanced than similar laws elsewhere. The IPRA ancestral domains and all resources are the material
incorporates native titles and natural resources bases embedded in their cultural integrity, which
within ancestral claims in its definition and with applies across all generations. They have long-
respect to IP rights of self-determination and held customary laws over land ownership that are
governance (Candelaria 2012; Doyle 2020). passed from one generation to the next. Their local
systems have been carried over when they traded
Ancestral domains are defined as inalienable their nomadic culture and settled for communal
communal property granted to IPs and/or ICCs. cultivation (Santiago 2020; Sy 2022). Despite the
Claimants must secure a Certificate of Ancestral promotion of their self-delineation, they are still
Domain Claim (CADC) from the Department of subject to submitting the necessary documents if they
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to wish to develop or utilize existing natural resources
formalize their claim. Through the NCIP, CADCs in their domains.
must be “converted” into CADTs (Cetrificate
of Ancestral Domain Titles), which “formally The NCIP has yet to exhaust the distribution
recogniz[es] the rights of possession and ownership of legitimate CADTs/CALTs. Three years after
of IPs over their ancestral domains. [The CADCs ratification, the agency failed to issue a single
must also be converte into] Certificate for Ancestral CADT (de Vera 2007). In 2009, it was only able
Land Titles (CALTs), which recognizes the IPs’ rights to distribute less than eight percent of the 7.5
over their ancestral lands” (IPRA 1997, Chapter II). million hectares of registered ancestral domains
Ownership is certified by a CADT/CALT and can be
(Cariño 2012). Ten years later, in 2019, NCIP had
issued or transferred to individuals, family members,
only approved 247 CADTs, with 54 registered and
or clans in accordance with civil laws on property
193 still pending completion of registration. That
and customary laws of ICCs. The NCIP acts as the
comprises only 17.19 percent of a total land area of
only institution mandated to grant CADT/CALT.
around 5.74 million hectares.

However, this is not always the case with

Effectively, Indigenous peoples who have yet to
claims made under different existing laws, including
receive their CADTs/CADLs are left displaced in the
those that concern mining, logging, agribusinesses,
lands of their ancestors with little legal evidence to
and dams. IP partners in this study, particularly
protect them against coercion by private firms.
the women leaders of the Talaandig community
in Bukidnon and Manobo students from Lumad
schools, recalled how third-party entities conscripted The Superpositions of Free Prior and
certain IP leaders and organizations to represent Informed Consent within IPRA 1997
corporate interests during negotiations between
communities, businesses, and local government The implementation of securing FPICs is not
units. Some of them acted as brokers for extractive without problems, too. According to Pastor Benny
operations in the Indigenous ancestral domain. Capuno (2020), a leader of the Ayta Mag-indi
The screening and titling process places Indigenous community in Pampanga and an Indigenous rights
peoples at a disadvantage because of the technicalities activist since the early 1990s, FPIC implementation
and language of documents, long turnaround times in communities has been limited to the decision
and transactions, and the proof of burden levied on of barangay officials and elected leaders, not the
IPs (Candelaria 2012). The lack of access to state consensus of the community. This contradicts the
definition of FPIC in IPRA:
 4 R E C OM MENDAT IO N S F O R T HE IN D IG EN O US PE O PL E ’ S R I G HTS A C T (I PR A ) O F 19 9 7

the consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs to Lessons and Recommendations

be determined in accordance with their respective
customary laws and practices, free from any The IPRA is a comprehensive attempt to
external manipulation, interference and coercion, rationalize the customary laws of IPs and ICCs
and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and within a national framework of development. The
scope of the activity, in a language and process aggressive assertion of Indigenous peoples during
understandable to the community. (Chapter II, and after the dictatorial martial law regime validates
Section 3g) the existence of the IPRA as a correction of historical
injustices, prejudices, and exclusion of Indigenous
In a report prepared by Oxfam America, Magno peoples as national minorities in the Philippine
and Gatmaytan (2013) enumerated some weaknesses legal and policy environment. However, throughout
of the FPIC implementation of the IPRA. These its implementation, there have been challenges in
include: expediting land distribution to IPs and ICCs. There
have also been breaches in respecting their rights
FPIC required only once (prior to 2012), and that is to self-governance and self-determination, such as
at the commencement of the project; careful administration of FPIC with IP and ICCs.

No procedure for impugning consent once Thus, a process of effectively delineating CADT
given or for suspending a project which has not and CALT acquisitions must be operationalized.
complied with the rules for securing FPIC; This process should encompass the existing norms,
values, and lifeways of indigenous groups as
Only consent from [I]ndigenous peoples required,
anchored in their history and strong relations to
even when the project can affect non-[I]ndigenous
land. Furthermore, the establishment of the Ancestral
populations;
Domain Office must be expanded and devolved to
local government units, with IPs and ICCs acting as
No monitoring mechanisms on violations
an executive body—and not only representatives—in
committed during the FPIC process and
the distribution and enforcement of CADT and other
implementation of the Memorandum of
transactions. This office should be composed of a
Agreement (MoA) between the mining company
majority of officials nominated by IP Tribal Councils
and the Indigenous peoples;
and IPOs from members of IPs and ICCs in the
locality.
Signing of MoA outside the communities can
contribute to mistrust by communities of their
The possibility of reforming NCIP as an
leaders/designated signatories. (2013, 9)
independent commission—led solely and composed
primarily of representatives of IPs and ICCs—
In principle, FPIC underscores the rights to self-
must be seriously considered. That the NCIP
determination and self-governance of IPs and ICCs,
does not embrace existing IPOs and communities
and to their ownership of ancestral domains and
introduces complications in the effectiveness of
lands (Domingo and Manejar 2020). This process
existing mechanisms in its mandate of promulgating
has been enshrined in the United Nations Declaration
the IPRA. In order to recenter IPs and IPOs in
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
leadership, the NCIP must
However, according to the Indigenous community
representatives who participated in this study, the
1. Create new items for the commission to
application of consent has been transformed into
assist in streamlining IPs’ validation process,
mere consultation of IP communities. The NCIP
and
has not only been criticized for corruption by many
IPOs. Many have also recognized how the FPIC
2. Allocate items and positions in the inclusion
has not been duly applied, thus functioning as an
of IPs and ICCs representatives among the
additional level of bureaucracy (Inguanzo and Wright
department and commission representatives.
2016, 12).
The state, through a reformed NCIP, should
 UP CI DS P O L I C Y BR I EF 2 02 2 -14 5

take immediate steps in streamlining the Doyle, Cathal. 2020. “The Philippine Indigenous
recognition process for IPOs, associations, Peoples Rights Act and ILO Convention 169
and tribal councils to act as legal parties. on Tribal and Indigenous Peoples: Exploring
This will effectively delineate the distribution Synergies for Rights realization.” International
of CADT and enforce local laws and Journal of Human Rights 24 (2–3): 170–90.
decisions concerning the IPRA. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1679120

Domingo, Sonny and Arvie Joy Manejar. 2020. Review

of Indigenous Peoples Policy and Institutional
References
Grounding. Quezon City: Philippine Institute for
Alamon, Arnold P. 2017. Wars of Extinction: Development Studies. https://pidswebs.pids.gov.
Discrimination and the Lumad Struggle in ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps2020.pdf
Mindanao. Iligan: Rural Missionaries of the
Enano, Jhesset O. 2021. “PH Deadliest Country in
Philippines–Northern Mindanao Sub-Region.
Asia for Environmental Defenders—Watchdog.”
Bello, Walden. 2020. “The Subversion of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, 14 September 2021.
Philippines’ Indigenous People’s Rights Act.” https://newsinfo.inquirer.net /1487429/ph
Focus on the Global South, 7 October 2020. -deadliest-country-in-asia-for-environment
https://focusweb.org /the-subversion-of-the -defenders-watchdog
-philippines-Indigenous-peoples-rights-act/
Fronda, Jordan, Marian Garafil, and Leon Dulce. 2020.
Environmental Defenders in the Time of COVID-19.
Candelaria, Sedfrey. 2012. Comparative analysis on the
Quezon City: Center for Environmental
ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No.
Concerns. https://www.cecphils.org/wp-content
169, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
/uploads/2020/11/Environmental-Defenders-in
Peoples (UNDRIP), and the Indigenous Peoples’
-the-Time-of-COVID-19.pdf
Rights Act (IPRA) of the Philippines. [Manila]:
International Labour Organization. http://ilo.org
Global Witness. 2021. “Last Line of Defence.” 13
/ w c m s p 5 /g r o u p s / p u b l i c / - - - a s i a / - - - r o
September 2021. https://www.globalwitness.org/
-bangkok/---ilo-manila/documents/publication
en/campaigns/environmental-activists/last-line-
/wcms_171406.pdf
defence/
Cariño, Jacqueline K. 2012. Country Technical
Headland, Thomas. 1999. “The Indigenous Peoples’
Note on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues: Republic of
Rights Act: A Triumph of Political Will.” SIL
the Philippines. Rome: International Fund for
Electronic Working Papers 1999-004, August
Agricultural Development. https://www.ifad.org
1999.
/documents/38714170/40224860/philippines
_ c t n . p d f /a e 0 f a a 4 a - 2 b 6 5 - 4 0 2 6 - 8 d 4 2 Inguanzo, Isabel, and Claire Wright. 2016. “Indigenous
-219db776c50d Movements in Southeast Asia: An Analysis
Based on the Concept of ‘Resonance.’” Asia-
Capuno, Benny. 2020. “The Indigenous Peoples
Pacific Social Science Review 16 (1): 1–17. https://
Rights Act of 1997.” Interview at UP Center for
www.researchgate.net/publication/304823712
Integrative and Development Studies, 20 February
_Indigenous_Movements_in_Southeast_Asia_An
2020, Quezon City, Philippines.
_Analysis_Based_on_the_Concept_of_’Resonance’
de Vera, Dave. 2021. A Briefer on the Indigenous
IPRA (Republic Act No. 8371). 1997. “The Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA). Quezon City: Asian
Peoples Rights Act of 1997.” 29 October 1997.
NGO Coalition; Quezon City: Bukluran para sa http://ncipcar.ph/images/pdfs/IPRA.pdf
Pangangalaga ng Kalikasan ng Pilipinas; Quezon
City: Phlippine Association for Intercultural Magno, Cielo, and Dante B. Gatmaytan. 2013. “Free
Development. https://angoc.org/wp-content Prior and Informed Consent in the Philippines:
/uploads/2021/08/IPRA__English_Final.pdf Regulation and Realities.” Oxfam America
Briefing Paper, September 2013. https://www.
oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/fpic-in-the
-philippines-september-2013.pdf
 6 R E C OM MENDAT IO N S F O R T HE IN D IG EN O US PE O PL E ’ S R I G HTS A C T (I PR A ) O F 19 9 7

Molintas, Jose Mencio. 2004. “The Philippine

Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle for Land and
Life: Challenging Legal Texts.” Arizona Journal
of International & Comparative Law 21 (1):
269–306. http://arizonajournal.org/wp-content
/uploads/2015/11/Molintas.pdf

PAN Asia Pacific (Pesticide Action Network Asia

Pacific). 2019. Land & Rights Watch: 2019 Yearend
Report. Penang, Malaysia: PAN Asia Pacific.
https://panap.net/resource/land-rights-watch
-2019-yearend-report/?ind=1594046463594&fi
lename=Land-and-Rights-Watch-2019-Yearend
-Report

Puno, Reynato S. 2000. Precis. Separate Opinion.

Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources, G.R. No. 135385. Supreme Court of
the Philippines, 6 December 2000. http://source.
gosupra.com/docs/opinion/87

Rico, Ruth Lusterio. 2007. “Civil Society Groups

and the Legislative Process: The Enactment of
the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act.” Philippine
Political Science Journal 28 (51): 55–84. https:
//doi.org/10.1080/01154451.2007.9723502

Santiago, Arline. 2020. “The Cordillera Indigenous

Peoples’ Right to Land.” Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 25
March 2020. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents
/ I s s u e s / I P e o p l e s / E M R I P/ R i g h t To L a n d
/SantiagoPhilippinesCordillera.pdf

Sy, Jose Monfred. 2022. “Till the Land, Defend the

Land: Reflections on the Critical Place-Based
Pedagogy of the Alternative Learning Center for
Agricultural and Livelihood Development, Surigao
del Sur.” AlterNative: An International Journal
of Indigenous Peoples 18 (3): 402–11. https://doi.
org/10.1177/11771801221115925
UP CI DS P O L I C Y BR I EF 2 02 2 -14 7
The UP CIDS Policy Brief Series features short reports, analyses, and EDITORIAL BOARD
commentaries on issues of national significance and aims to provide research-based
inputs for public policy. The views and opinions expressed in this policy brief are Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
those of the author/s and neither reflect nor represent those of the University of
the Philippines or the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies. UP CIDS Janus Isaac V. Nolasco
policy briefs are not for quotation or reprinting without permission from the author/s DEPUTY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
and the Center.
PROGRAM EDITORS

EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITIES EDUCATION AND CAPACITY

BUILDING CLUSTER

The Editor-in-Chief and the Program Editors ensure that policy briefs contain Dina S. Ocampo
research findings on issues that are aligned with the core agenda of the Education Research Program

research programs under the University of the Philippines Center for Integrative Fernando DLC. Paragas
Program on Higher Education
and Development Studies (UP CIDS).
Research and Policy Reform

Marie Therese Angeline P. Bustos

The responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and the Program Editors is towards Assessment, Curriculum, and
high standards of scholarship, the generation of new knowledge that can be Technology Research Program
utilized for the good of the public, and the dissemination of such information. Jalton G. Taguibao
Program on Data Science for
Public Policy
ABOUT UP CIDS
DEVELOPMENT CLUSTER

Established in 1985 by UP President The UP CIDS partakes in the Annette O. Pelkmans-Balaoing

Edgardo Angara, the UP Center University’s leadership in knowledge Program on Escaping the Middle-
for Integrative and Development Income Trap: Chains for Change
creation and public service. This is
Studies (UP CIDS) is a policy carried out through the dissemination Antoinette R. Raquiza
research unit of the University that of research-based knowledge through Political Economy Program
connects disciplines and scholars activities such as fora, symposia, and Eduardo C. Tadem
across the several units of the UP conferences, and through its public Karl Arvin F. Hapal
System. It is mandated to encourage policy-oriented publications. These Program on Alternative
collaborative and rigorous research research activities are initiated by Development
addressing issues of national the Center's twelve (12) research Antonio Miguel L. Dans
significance by supporting scholars
programs. Jose Rafael A. Marfori
and securing funding, enabling Program on Health Systems
them to produce outputs and Development
recommendations for public policy.
SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND
CULTURAL STUDIES CLUSTER

Maria Ela L. Atienza

Jorge V. Tigno
ABOUT THE PROGRAM Program on Social and Political
Change
The Program on Alternative international discourse. Hence, AltDev Macrina A. Morados
Development (AltDev) aims to look aims to bring these voices out of the Islamic Studies Program
at paradigms, policies, practices, margins and into the mainstream,
Herman Joseph S. Kraft
and projects largely marginalized leveling the playing field so that they Strategic Studies Program
and excluded from the mainstream. may be regarded on an equal footing
with the dominant discourse and Marie Aubrey J. Villaceran
As these alternatives challenge
thus offer alternatives to the existing Frances Antoinette C. Cruz
dominant modes, they do not figure Decolonial Studies Program
system.
prominently in the national and

EDITORIAL STAFF
The UP CIDS Policy Brief Series is published quarterly by the
University of the Philippines Virna Liza O. Guaño
Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS). Mika Andrea O. Ramirez
Angeli P. Lacson
Editorial Office: Lower Ground Floor, Ang Bahay ng Alumni, EDITORIAL ASSOCIATES
Magsaysay Avenue, University of the Philippines,
Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Jheimeel P. Valencia
Telephone: 8981-8500 loc. 4266 to 4268 / 8426-0955 COPYEDITOR
Email: [email protected] / [email protected]
Thea Paez
LAYOUT ARTIST
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Lower Ground Floor, Ang Bahay ng Alumni
Magsaysay Avenue, University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City 1101
Telephone: 8981-8500 loc. 4266 to 4268 / 8426-0955
Email: [email protected] / [email protected]
Website: cids.up.edu.ph