Galang, Czyrone Angelo Plan 203 May 21, 2018

I.D. # 201790728 Final Paper

PLANNING THE NIPAS PROTECTED AREAS

Social and Environmental Justice

Jose Molintas discussed in his paper the Philippine indigenous peoples’ struggle for land
and life. According to Molintas (2004), in the past 20th century until now, there are several issues
pertaining to the indigenous people both locally and internationally, especially the absence or the
lack of implementation of formal legal system for defending their lands and resources.

Major groups of indigenous peoples are classified into seven groupings under the data of
Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayang Pilipino (KAMP). The groups are as follows:

1. Mindanao Lumad: Meaning “born and grown in the place”, the Lumads are the largest
grouping of indigenous people in the country. They include the Subanen, Manobo,
B’laan, T’boli, Mandaya, Mansaka, Tiruray, Higaonon, Bagobo, Bukidnon, Tagkaolo,
Banwaon, Dibabawon, Talaandig, Mamanua, and Manguangan.
2. Cordillera Peoples: Covering six provinces in the Northern Luzon (Abra, Apayao,
Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga, and Mountain Province), they are collectively called Igorots
(meaning “mountain people”).
3. Caraballo Tribes: These are the indigenous people who ihabits the Caraballo mountain
range in Eastern Central Luzon having five ethno-linguistic groups namely, Ibanag,
Illongot, Gaddang, Ikalahan, and Isinai.
4. Agta and Aeta/Negrito: These short, dark-skinned people who lives in Zambales, Bataan,
and Pampanga are considered one of the earliest inhabitants of the Philippines.
5. Mangyan of Mindoro: They are the first inhabitants of the island and still practice the
pre-Spanish writing form. This group includes people speaking the Batangan, Iraya,
Hamunoo, Alangan, Ratagnon, Buhid and Tadyawan tongue.
6. Palawan Hill Tribes: These non-Muslim tribal people are located in Palawan and west of
Mindoro, which are composed of Tagbanuas, Bataks, Kalamianeses, Cuyonins, and Ken-
uys.
7. Muslim Groups: These are the Muslims of Mindanao comprised of 14 groups, namely,
Maranao, Maguindano, Tausug, Samal, Yakan, Sangil, Palawi, Badjao, Kalibugan,
Jama-Mapun, Ipanun, Kalagan, Molbog, and Muslim.

Since the start of indigenous settlement, our ancestors believed in cosmic forces and the
Creator who they called in many names like Bathala, Kabunian, Magbabaya, and Apo Sandawa.
And in their myths, the land and its resources were created by their deities. For them it was
sacred because land was of divine origin. Amongst the indigenous peoples, there was a belief
that the land was held usufruct and it could never be removed from the community’s use. When
they nomadic, they collected food from places they pass through. When they settled into the
plains, they established communal ownership. They believed in the sanctity of land and its fruits.

As classified by Maceda (1975), the indigenous peoples of the Philippines are grouped
based on the concept of land ownership and tenure. In the case of the Cordilleran people for
Planning the NIPAS Protected Areas 1
Galang, Czyrone Angelo Plan 203 May 21, 2018
I.D. # 201790728 Final Paper

example, these include the Bontoks, Ifugaos, Kankanaey, Kalingas, and others. Acquisition of
land for these people is a matter of occupying and then cultivating the area. The first occupant to
make a terrace on the area is considered the owner. The land property my then be alienated
through sale, barter, mortgage, or inheritance within the group of owners which makes it difficult
for outsiders to purchase land from them.

The Philippines, being the only country in Asia who uses the term “indigenous people”
which comprise 17 to 20 % of the population in 1995, is an archipelago gifted with abundant
natural resources, colorful history and diverse culture, and numerous ethno-linguistic groups.
The indigenous peoples in the country remained living in isolated communities when most
lowland communities had merged into a single colony under the rule of the Spaniards in the
1700s to 1800s. Their rich cultures have been preserved as reflected in their communal views on
land, their rituals, folklore, and cooperative work exchange.

However, during the colonial years in the Philippines, the arrival of migrants into many
of the indigenous peoples’ lands gradually influenced and changed the indigenous peoples’ way
of life. Today, this phenomenon is still present and most indigenous communities are no longer
pure.

The American occupation introduced the force of the market economy and central
government. This caused the indigenous people to be caught up in that situation. Lowlanders
who are influenced by the popular culture from the Americans damaged the tribal ways of life to
some extent. In terms of land ownership, the American government used policies requiring
settlers to obtain deed from the government. The laws passed during that period were the
following:

1. The Land Registration Act No. 496 of 1902, which declared the lands subjects to Torrens
system of formal registration of land title. The system encouraged the use of land as a
commodity that could be bought through a transfer of paper.
2. The Philippine Commission Act No. 178 of 1903 says that all unregistered land is owned
by the state who has the authority to classify or exploit it.
3. Mining Law of 1905, which gave Americans the right to acquire public land for mining
purposes.
4. The Puclic Land Acts of 1913, 1919, and 1925, which opened all fertile lands that the
State considered unoccupied, public lands to homesteaders and corporations, despite the
fact that indigenous people are living in these lands.

The pressure upon the indigenous peoples’ lands increased in the 1970s when foreign
investment and exporting goods became a trend. And because the indigenous communities
occupy the larger areas rich in natural resources, they were overwhelmed by the growing local
and foreign corporations engaged with resource extraction like, mining, logging, plantations, and
other export industries. And because these industries promote rapid economic growth, past and
present governments have constructed foreign-funded infrastructure projects that have
recurrently blurred and diminished the extent of indigenous peoples’ ancestral domain. The
military has also contributed to the movement against the will of indigenous communities by
forcibly relocating many indigenous groups in an effort to neutralize the growing number of

Planning the NIPAS Protected Areas 2

Galang, Czyrone Angelo Plan 203 May 21, 2018
I.D. # 201790728 Final Paper

resisting communities in the uplands. These attacks on the indigenous people will deprive them
of their ancestral lands and the continuing loss of their culture.

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) is the newest law to secure the rights
of the indigenous peoples. It is the first comprehensive law to recognize the rights of indigenous
people to their ancestral lands and domain. IPRA also acknowledges the customs of indigenous
people’s self governance. However, criticisms about IPRA arose especially caused by the
conflict with other laws like the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. There was a conflict between
ownership and management of State and indigenous peoples’ lands and led to a considerable
amount of snatch of IP’s domain. Many stories from the indigenous communities say that there
have been land fragmentation and titling caused by fraud or legal circumvention by corporations
and individuals who wants to acquire their lands. In the Cordilleras, land grabbing basically
encompasses corporations determining large parcel of land from IP’s as energy resource in order
to construct hydroelectric plants, mines, and other business projects.

The procedure of acquiring land through Torrens is so tedious that it wants that the
applicant to be literate and to grasp Western legal practices and has the financial means and time
to go through the procedure. It also requires the accessibility of newspaper in the area.

Another law that hinders the indigenous people from owning land is the National Integrated
Protected Areas Program (NIPAP). For example in Mt. Pulag in Benguet (1990s), Ibaloys are
deprived of living in and around the mountain. Likewise the National Integrated Protected Areas
System Act (NIPAS) endeavors to zone areas to be preserved for ecological reasons.
Consequently, it disadvantages the indigenous peoples access into the areas like national parks
and watersheds. It actually hinders the right of indigenous people to utilize the natural resources
they need for every day living.

Along with the social injustices experienced by the indigenous people, there is also a
battle for environmental justice in our country. According to the United Nations University’s
Institute for Environment and Human Security and the German Alliance Development Works,
the Philippines is the third in the world most vulnerable to climate change. Rodne Galicha from
The Climate Reality Project (TCRP) shares, that land conversion, deforestation, and mining are
the key factors that amplifies the effects of disasters.

Fr. Edwin Gariguez, one of the six 2012 Goldman Prize awardees was in Mindoro and
became a panel in the Environmental Law Symposium with the theme ”Integrating Legal
Remedies to Protect Natural Resources in the Philippines”. He said on his acceptance speech, “I
was taught by the Mangyan indigenous peoples to care for the earth. For them nature is likened
to a womb that sustains us with life. One of these leaders is Badang, a Mangyan woman that
went on hunger strike with me. She was ready to die to save the watershed threatened by mining.
For her, once the forest is destroyed, we too will perish. She helped me understand that what is at
stake in the campaign is the survival of our planet, of which we are merely a part... I also believe
that in our effort to save our environment, we need to promote global solidarity. We have only
one world to care for and to protect, and every small initiative matters.”
Fr. Edu, as he is fondly called, and other panelist talked about mining, its impact in the
surroundings and the laws that protects the environment. Republic Act No. 7942 or the

Planning the NIPAS Protected Areas 3

Galang, Czyrone Angelo Plan 203 May 21, 2018
I.D. # 201790728 Final Paper

Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is treated as a cast in stone. President Benigno Aquino III
launched the National Greening Program and Issued Executive Order No. 79, which commit to
protect the environment and establish a no-go areas for mining. However, Atty. Ramos (2013)
written on her article in the Inquirer, the DENR lifted the mining suspension even without the
maps and the failure to identify the No-Go areas.

The NIPAS Law

According to the textbook Property, Patrimony & Territory by Serote, E. (2003), the
Americans may have been the ones who introduced the concept of protected areas between 1911
to 1945. The National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Law of 1992 has combined
all protected areas and put it under one system. The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) through the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWD) then administrate
this system.

Republic Act No. 7586, Sec. 2 (1992) states the rationale for the establishment of the system as
follows:

“Cognizant of the profound impact of man’s activities on all components of the natural
environment particularly the effect of increasing population, resource exploitation and industrial
advancement and recognizing the critical importance of protecting and maintaining the natural
biological and physical diversities of the environment notably on areas with biologically unique
features to sustain human life and development, as well as plant and animal life, it is hereby
declared the policy of the State to secure for the Filipino people of present and future generation
the perpetual existence of all native plants and animals through the establishment of a
comprehensive system of integrated protected areas within the classification of national park as
provided for in the Constitution.

It is hereby recognized that these areas, although distinct in features, possess common ecological
values that may be incorporated into a holistic plan representative of our natural heritage; that
effective administration of these areas is possible only through the cooperation among national
government, local government, and concerned private organizations; that the use and enjoyment
of these protected areas must be consistent with the principles of biological diversity and
sustainable development.

To this end, there is hereby established a National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS),
which shall encompass outstandingly remarkable areas and biologically important public lands
that are habitats of rare and endangered species of plants and animals, biogeographic zones and
related ecosystem, whether terrestrial, wetland or marine, all of which shall be designated as
protected areas.”

Included in the preparatory stage for the establishment of the initial components of NIPAS are
the (1) Compilation of Maps and Technical Descriptions of Protected Areas, (2) Initial
Screening, (3) Public Notification, (4) Initial Consultation, (5) Census and Registration of
Protected Area Occupants, (6) Resource Profiling, (7) Initial Protected Area Plan, (8) Public

Planning the NIPAS Protected Areas 4

Galang, Czyrone Angelo Plan 203 May 21, 2018
I.D. # 201790728 Final Paper

Hearings, (9) Regional Review and Recommendation, (10) National Review and
Recommendation, (11) Issuance of Presidential Proclamation, (12) Congressional Action, and
(13) Demarcation.

NIPAS vs. IPRA: Battle over the Coron Island

In 1993, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative

Order No. 2 (DAO 2) allowed the delineation of ancestral domains and the issuance to
indigenous communities of Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADC) and Certificate of
Ancestral Land Claims (CALC). However, these claims are not titles. It only provides some
degree of control over their territories. These provisions were strengthened in 1997 when
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) was proclaimed under Pres. Ramos. Now IP’s have the
right to own their land through the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) and Certificate
of Ancestral Land Title (CALT).

The National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act was signed in 1992 with
the objective of developing a system and integrating the role of indigenous people in protected
areas management and decision-making. This approach is mainly through the Protected Area
Management Board (PAMB), which is comprised by government officers, NGOs, and local
community representative. According to the World Rainforest Movement, Several NGOs and
Community-based Organizations, however, pointed out that there are instances that the PAMB
has not been effectively functioning due to the number of restrictions, from lack of documents in
local languages and resources for workshops and meetings, to the fact the PAMB’s chairperson
is a government officer and the locals as often shy to speak and voice out their concerns in the
presence of the government officials. This ultimately results to the decision-making made by the
government representatives. Apart from the ambiguity of the law and its almost theoretical
approach, there are criticisms for National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and its
representation of the IPs, because the President appointed most of them without consultation,
especially under the Estrada Administration.

One particular case study from the article of the World Rainforest Movement (2003) was
particularly the possible conflict between NIPAS Act and the IPRA Act in the Coron Island,
Calaminianes Islands, North Palawan.

The Tagbanwa of Coron Island have been living surrounded by water once rich in marine
resources. In the 1980s, having no legal tenure over the lands, migrant fishers and tourism
entrepreneurs encroached the area. Pliticians looking for land deals and government agencies
who wants to control the resources of the island also came after. As a result they faced food
shortage.

They organized the Tagbanwa Foundation of Coron Island in 1985 and applied for a
Community Forest Stewardship Agreement (CFSA). In 1990 they were awarded 7,748 hectares
covering the whole island and neighboring Delian Island. The problem did not stop there. They
realized that dynamites, cyanide, and other destructive way of fishing were destroying their
water surroundings. Through the use of DENR’s DAO 2, in 1998 they manage to acquire the

Planning the NIPAS Protected Areas 5

Galang, Czyrone Angelo Plan 203 May 21, 2018
I.D. # 201790728 Final Paper

first CADC and then CADT. But the CADT was put under review with the restructuring NCIP in
the mid-2001.

The CADC and CADT were put to prompt use when Coron Island was selected as one of
the 8 sites under the National Integrated Protected Areas Program (NIPAP). The intention of the
DENR was to gazette the island as a Protected Area. This has not been realized because the
Tagbanwas feared that they would lose the island again. They used the CADT and preferred to
stick with their right-based approach. Coron Island was selected as one of the 8 sites for the
project without any consultation from them.

The article summarized, “This case aptly illustrates the potential conflicts between the
NIPAS and the IPRA. The Coron Island case could actually also be seen as the use but an
indigenous community of the rights-based law (IPRA) to support a community-conserved area
(CCA) versus the use by the DENR of participatory protected areas laws (NIPAS) to push for a
state-declared Protected Area.”

The ICCA Act of 2016

The Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Conserved Areas and Territories
(ICCA) Act of 2016 recognizes the contribution of the indigenous people to biodiversity
conservation and protection. Section 5 of the bill discuses the following:

“ICCAs shall be respected as an exercise by the ICC/IP of their ancestral domain rights
as well as their sustainable traditional resource right. ICCAs shall be accorded special protection
and full recognition by all national and local government agencies. Except for ICCA
documentation and mapping and biodiversity conservation-related activities involving the full
participation of the concerned ICC/IP, the requirements for free and prior informed consent
(FPIC) shall be strictly followed for all other allowable activities within ICCAs.”

According to Section 6, ICCAs are no-go zones for mining and other destructive forms of
natural resource exploration and utilization. Moreover, such activities outside ICCAs are also not
allowed if the area will be adversely affected.

The bill has promising features like it establishes a national ICCA registry to ensure the
availability of official information on ICCAs. It protects the areas from destructive activities like
resource extractions. HB No. 115 also provides incentives in the development of sustainable
livelihood opportunities for ICCs/IPs. And most importantly, it states the inclusion in the
Protected Are Management System; incase the ICCAs overlaps with Protected Areas, the ICCAs
shall be recognized and included in the management systems of the protected areas and KBAs.

The one thing that I think is lacking in this bill is the teeth in implementing the bill
especially in Section 22 (Penalties). It states that violators are only accountable for as much as
Php.6,000.00 to Php.500,000.00. I think our nature has greater value than that. Destruction of
these ICCAs takes a long time to recover or replenish. There are also no provisions on repeated
violations.

Planning the NIPAS Protected Areas 6

Galang, Czyrone Angelo Plan 203 May 21, 2018
I.D. # 201790728 Final Paper

Conclusion

I have learned in my Planning Theory and Land Use Planning classes that public
consultation should be in every step of the planning process. This is entirely because they know
best of what they need, what the concerns are, what the problems are, and how to go about
hidden internal mechanisms. That is why I would like to recommend the active participation of
the locals or indigenous people through information dissemination (translated in their language),
consultations, and implementation.

I believe that implementation is the most difficult part of it all, especially on penalties.
Penalties should not be as if you are taking away the batteries of a child’s toy if he/she did a
horrific act. It should be like taking away the toy for good. I am not saying that we should be
harsh on our children, but violators against nature are also violators against the people who make
it as a source of livelihood and protects it.

References:

Molintas, Jose. (2004). The Philippine Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle for Land and Life:
Challenging Legal Texts. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law. Vol 21,
No. 1. Retrieved last May 1, 2018 at http://arizonajournal.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/Molintas.pdf

Maceda, Marcelino. (1975). A Survey of Landed Property Concepts and Practices Among the
Marginal Agriculturists of the Philippines, 2 Philippine Quarterly of Science &Culture.
Pp. 5-20.

Ramos, Gloria. (July 15, 2013) The Fight for Environmental Justice. Retrieved last May 12,
2018 at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/445235/the-fight-for-environmental-justice

Serote, Ernesto. (2004). Property, Patrimony, & Territory. School of Urban and Regional
Planning: Quezon City, Philippines. Pp. 221-223, 286-287.

World Rainforest Movement. (2003) The Philippines: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights-based

Approach to Conversation. Retrieved last May 13, 2018 at
http://wrm.org.uy/oldsite/bulletin/73/Philipines.html

Republic Act 7586

House Bill No. 115 by Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat

Philippine Association for Intercultural Development. (2017). The Philippine ICCA Bil: A
Policy Brief. May 13, 2018 at http://ilc-nes.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/3-The-Philippine-
ICCA-Bill-A-Policy-Brief.pdf

Planning the NIPAS Protected Areas 7