History of the IPRA Law

The ILO or the International Labour Convention has been

engaged with indigenous and tribal peoples issues since the 1920s. It
is responsible for the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989
(No. 169), the only international treaty open for ratification that deals
exclusively with the rights of these peoples. The ILOs Decent Work
Agenda , with gender equality and non-discrimination as a crosscutting concern, serves as a framework for indigenous and tribal
peoples empowerment. Access to decent work enables indigenous
women and men to harness their potential as change agents in poverty
reduction, sustainable development and climate change action.
(source:
http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/indigenoustribal/lang--en/index.htm)
As for natural resources pertaining to their traditional lands, this
Convention recognizes IPs rights to participate in their use,
management and conservation. Whether and to what extent IPs are
granted ownership of mineral and other natural resources within their
traditional lands is determined by the concerned State. This is
consistent with the principle of State sovereignty and is also supported
by Article 34 of the same Convention which provides that The nature
and scope of the measures to be taken to give effect to this
Convention shall be determined in a flexible manner, having regard to
the conditions characteristic of each country.
The Draft Universal Declaration on the Rights of IPs recognizes their
right to own the total environment and other resources which they
have traditionally owned, occupied or used. Being a draft, it is not,
however, legally binding. Other international agreements such as those
resulting from the Rio Summit highlight the role of IPs and the need to
integrate their practices with current approaches in sustainable
development. In general, these agreements called for the recognition
of the knowledge of IPs, prescriptions to states to support their culture
and to guarantee their effective participation.
Foreign Laws
The foreign laws briefly discussed reflect various perspectives,
specifically in relation to IPs rights over the mineral resources within
lands traditionally held by them. There is no prescribed way of
approaching these issues but, in an apparent reflection of Art. 34 of ILO
Convention, these are dealt with in a manner that considers the
conditions characteristic of each country. This is also consistent with a
States sovereign prerogative to determine the nature and extent of
rights over mineral and other natural resources.

One criticism of the IPRA is that it appears to grant what some consider
automatic ownership not only over ancestral lands but over ancestral
domains which include, by definition, the mineral and other natural
resources therein. It is argued that the grant of ownership over
minerals is neither found nor supported in any binding international
texts nor under any foreign laws. The nature and extent of rights which
are granted under the IPRA to IPs over natural resources within their
ancestral lands and domains are fundamental issues pending before
the Supreme Court.
Philippine Legal Developments
In recent years, there have been significant legal developments
pertaining to the interests of IPs. The 1935 Constitution had no express
statement on the matter while the 1973 Constitution had only one
provision. In contrast, the 1987 Constitution contains a significant
number of provisions on IPs and formally recognizes the concepts of
ancestral lands and domains. These provisions reveal the divergence
between civil law and customary law as the fundamental issue
underlying state policies on IPs. Attempts to balance these apparent
antagonisms are evident in provisions like Section 22 of Article II which
provides that the State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity
and development.
Similar to international legal developments, the different Philippine
laws on IPs prior to the promulgation of the IPRA reflect the shift in
policy from assimilation to recognition of IPs right of selfdetermination. Specific policy shifts are also evident toward
community-based management, toward recognizing the value of
indigenous knowledge and practices in sustainable development and
toward ensuring the participation of IPs in relevant local and national
policy bodies.
With respect to ancestral domains and lands, the most significant legal
developments took place within the framework of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). DENR Administrative
Order No. 2 (DAO 2) provided for the identification, delineation and
recognition of ancestral land and domain claims leading to the
issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) and
Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC). Although CADCs and
CALCs are significant tenurial instruments, these were not grants of
title.
There were many significant legal developments concerning IPs even
before the promulgation of the IPRA, such as Section 16 of the Mining

Act whereby IPs prior consent is required before mining activities can
be undertaken in ancestral lands. With respect to ancestral domains,
the 1987 Constitution recognizes this concept in laws like RA 6734, the
Organic Act for the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao, and in
rules like DAO 2. Furthermore, significant principles in our Philippine
laws prior to the IPRA appear to echo international law principles,
including:
recognition of IPs rights to their ancestral lands;
the right to be consulted with respect to activities affecting
them;
their right to give their prior consent before certain activities
within their ancestral lands or domains may proceed;
the right to benefit from utilization of natural resources within
their ancestral lands and domains;
the right to be fairly compensated for any damages sustained
as a result of certain activities undertaken within their ancestral lands
and domains, specifically mining activities;
a right of priority to be awarded certain contracts within their
ancestral lands, in the case of small scale mining, and the priority
rights in the exploration, development and utilization of natural
resources within their ancestral domains, in the case of the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao;
the recognition of and respect for customary laws, specifically
with regard to determining the extent of their lands and domains;
their right of effective participation in the local and national
levels; and
the recognition of their role in environmental management.
Although these and other laws promoted the welfare of IPs and
expressly called for recognition of their rights and value, there was no
express recognition of the right of ownership by IPs of their ancestral
domains, and the natural resources therein, by virtue of their historical
occupation and relationship to the same. This is one main area in
which the IPRA appears to make a radical legal departure. (source:
http://www.sdsg.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/02/IPRA_Cdalupan_2000.pdf)
Early Beginnings
Year 1909, in the case of Carino vs. Insular Government, the
court has recognized long occupancy of land by an indigenous member
of the cultural communities as one of private ownership, which, in legal
concept, is termed native title. This case paved the way for the
government to review the so-called native title or private right. In
the year 1919, the Second Public Land Act was enacted, recognizing
the right of ownership of any native of the country who, since July 4,

1907, or prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either

by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract of
agricultural public land.
In 1936, Commonwealth Act No.141, amended by R.A. 3872 of
1964, was passed which provides that members of the national cultural
minorities who have resided on agricultural, public land since July 4,
1955 are entitled to recognition of ownership whether or not the land
has been certified as disposable. They shall be conclusively
presumed to have performed all conditions essential to a government
grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title.[2]
In the 1970s, the laws protecting indigenous peoples lands
expanded to territorial and bigger domains. Under Bureau of Forestry
Administrative Order No. 11 of 1970, all forest concessions were made
subject to the private rights of cultural minorities within the area as
evidenced by their occupation existing at the time a license is issued
by the government. The Revised Forestry Code of 1975 (Presidential
Decree 705 under President Marcos) defines this "private right of as
places of abode and worship, burial grounds and old clearings.[3]
In 1978, the Presidential Arm for National Minorities (PANAMIN)
was authorized to design, implement and maintain settlements among
the National Minorities. Prior to this, a Presidential Decree was issued
in 1974, declaring all agricultural lands occupied and cultivated by
members of the national Cultural Communities since 1964 as alienable
and disposable, except the islands of Panay and Negros and the
provinces of Abra, Quezon, Benguet and Camarines which became
effective on March 11, 1984.[2]
The most recent laws before the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
of 1997 was passed which recognize the existence of ancestral land
right are the Organic Act of Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
(RA 6734, 1989), and the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous
Region (RA 6766, 1989).
Historical Evolution of RA.8371
The decrees that have been passed fail to encompass all the
needs of the indigenous people primarily because of failure in
implementation and sole focus on the land and domains only.
Because of this, a more comprehensive law is needed that
seeks to stop prejudice against indigenous people through recognition
of certain rights over their ancestral lands, and to live in accordance
recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous people not only to
their ancestral domain but to social justice and human rights, self-

determination and empowerment, and their cultural integrity, [2] This

then gave birth to movements for a comprehensive law that will
protect not only the lands, but human rights of the Filipino indigenous
people.
CIPRAD or the Coalition for Indigenous Peoples Rights and
Ancestral Domains is an alliance of Indigenous Peoples Organizations
(IPOs) and non-government organizations (NGOs) created to pursue
the advocacy for IP rights and ancestral domains. The Coalition is
participated by IPOs in the Cordillera, Region I, Nueva Vizcaya,
Cagayan, Caraballo, Sierra Madre, Quezon, Aurora, Quirino, Nueva
Ecija, Zambales, Pampanga, Bulacan, Mindoro Occidental, Palawan,
Panay, Davao, Cagayan, Cotabato and Zamboanga. CIPRAD partnered
with various NGOs organizations such as Episcopal Commission on
Indigenous Peoples, National Peace Conference, Center for Living
Heritage and PANLIPI (Legal Assistance Center for Indigenous Filipinos)
in order to lobby for the IPRA or Indigenous Peoples Rights Act.
IPRA, formerly known as Ancestral Domain Bill, was first filed in
the Congress sometime in 1987 under the Senate Bill No. 909 authored
by Senator Santanina Rasul, Senator Joseph Estrada and Senator
Alberto Romulo, during the 8th Congress, but was never enacted in to
law. In the 9th Congress, Senator Rasul introduced Senate Bill No. 1029
and Senator Macapagal-Arroyo introduced Senate Bill No. 1849.
However, the bill was never sponsored and deliberated upon in the
floor.
Despite these failed efforts, the IPOs decided to give it another
try. Decisions have been made during social negotiations among NGOs
and POs to rename the bill from Ancestral Domain Bill to Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act to emphasize the holistic approach and character of
the bill. A consensus was made on December 1995 between IP
representatives and NGO representatives. Seven non-negotiable points
of the bill that were promoted are the following:
a) recognition of native ttitle and rights of IPs to ancestral domains, b )
respect for the right to cultural integrity, c) recognition of indigenous
peoples political structures and governance, d) delivery of basic
services to the indigenous peoples, e) respect for human rights, f)
elimination of discrimination, g) and creation of an office that would
cater to the IPs needs.
Year 1996, during the 10th Congress, Senator Juan Flavier
sponsored the Bill no. 1728 which meant that he has to defend the bill
in all the Senate deliberations and discussions. In his sponsorship
speech, he discussed the legal bases for the bill which can be found in
the 1987 Constitution. He also discussed the basic rights of the ICCs,

the contents of the bill itself, and the immediate need of protection of
the Filipino Indigenous People.[2]
Despite difficult hurdles and amendments enacted in the
Congress which nearly brought the movement to its death, the House
of Representatives finally approved the bill late in September 1997.
President Fidel V. Ramos signed it on 22 October 1997 officially making
it Republic Act No. 8371 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 which
aims to Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous
cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPS) and for other
Purposes.
(source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Peoples
%27_Rights_Act_of_1997)
History of NICP
The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is an
agency of the Philippine government with frontline services for the
Indigenous Peoples and attached to the Office of the President. The
NCIP evolved through a series of governmental reorganizations in an
effort to properly address the multifarious issues and concerns
confronting the countrys diverse Indigenous Cultural Communities/
Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs), and to effectively, efficiently and
responsively deliver basic services to them.
It was during the American regime that the Bureau of NonChristian Tribes under the Department of Interior was created, for the
purpose of helping the ICCs/IPs, who were then referred to as the nonChristian tribes. Subsequently, to give it more power, it was elevated
to an independent body-the Commission on National Integration (CNI).
In 1972, the CNI was abolished. Then President Ferdinand E.
Marcos created the Southern Philippine Development Authority (SPDA)
and the Presidential Assistance on National Minorities (PANAMIN). The
SPDA undertook the implementation of programs for the Muslims which
agency later became the Ministry of Muslim Affairs. The PANAMIN, on
the other hand, implemented the programs for the non-Muslims or
other tribal groups. It sought to integrate into the mainstream of
society certain ethnic groups, and at the same time protect the rights
of those who wish to preserve their original lifeways beside the larger
community.
In 1984, the government under Pres. Ferdinand Marcos created the
Office for Muslim Affairs and Cultural Communities (OMACC) by virtue
of the Executive Order No. 969. The OMACC catered to the needs of
both the Muslim and Non-Muslim communities. This agency did not last

long as government management realized that lumping the Islamicized

groups and the ICCs into one office did not work well as envisioned.
In January 1987, the OMACC was abolished and the Aquino
administration issued three Executive Orders creating three distinct
and separate offices, as follows, E.O. No. 122-A, creating the Office for
the Muslim Affairs (OMA); E.O. 122-B, creating the Office for Northern
Cultural Communities (ONCC) and E.O. 122-C, creating the Office for
Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC). These three Offices were
attached to the Office of the President.
Avowing the rights and welfare of the ICCs/IPs, particularly their
clamor on land tenure security and the recognition of their freedom to
make choices under the rubric of human rights and development,
Republic Act 8371 was enacted into law on October 29, 1997, creating
the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) merging the
ONCC and OSCC as its organic offices.
The NCIP is composed of seven Commissioners, one of whom is
the Chairperson.
(source: http://www.ncip.gov.ph/index.php/about-us1/history)