ITOGON, Benguet – The Itogon Indigenous Peoples Organization (IIPO) expressed their deep concern on House Bill (HB) 9687 that seeks to rationalize the ancestral lands administration and adjudication process as it has the potential to significantly undermine the rights of indigenous peoples.
In a statement, the IIPO believes that the bill fails to prioritize the well being of the IPs and directly contradicts their fundamental needs and aspirations as vibrant communities.
“Our rich cultural heritage as indigenous peoples revolves around our ancestral domain. It is not merely a piece of land, but rather a sacred space that holds immense spiritual and cultural significance for us. Our profound connection to the land dates back to ancient times, shaping our unique worldview, belief and traditional knowledge systems,” the statement stressed.
Further, the IIPO claimed that indigenous peoples across the globe have long endured injustices and marginalization, often resulting in the loss of lands and cultural heritage. Recognizing the said historical justice, the Philippines embraced the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), a groundbreaking legislation that acknowledges, safeguards, and advances the rights of IPs. IPRA also provides a legal framework for resolving ancestral land disputes as well as managing and developing ancestral domains. It ensures the active participation of IP communities in decision-making processes and safeguards their rights and traditional practices. It empowers the IPs to sustainably manage their ancestral domains and preserve their cultural heritage for future generations.
According to the group, HB 9608 poses a significant threat to the progress mad through IPRA as it could potentially undermine the rights and wellbeing of IPs, jeopardizing their ancestral domains and cultural heritage.
It emphasized that any legislation affecting IPs should be developed in close consultation with the IP communities ensuring that their voices are heard and their rights are amply respected.
HB 9608 aims to amend the IPRA by reorganizing the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) where the amendment suggests that the NCIP should no longer function as an independent agency and instead be placed under the Executive Secretary of the Office of the President. Moreover, the Ancestral Domain Office, currently under the NCIP, would be transferred to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
The IIPO asserted that the bill has the potential to redefine IP rights to their ancestral lands, prioritizing the interest of mining and big businesses over their own needs and interests. It has the possibility to undermine the consistency and coherence of the legal frameworks, leading to confusion and weakening the legal protections available to IPs. The said situation may lead to rights violations, legal disputes, and a loss of trust in the government’s sincerity.
The group explained that one significant risk associated with transferring the ADO under the DENR is the loss of its specialized focus on IP affairs.
It stipulated that the ADO’s work under the DENR will surely be overshadowed, diluting its ability to prioritize the rights and welfare of IP communities considering that the agency is also working on environmental concerns among others. Consequently, the situation could lead to dismissed capacity to address the unique challenges faced by IP communities.
Another concern raised by the group is the conflict of interest as the DENR is primarily responsible for overseeing natural resources management, including mining and logging operations where the said activities often lead to dispute concerning ancestral lands, thus, placing the ADO under the jurisdiction of the DENR may result in conflicts between the agency’s duty to protect indigenous rights and the DENR’s mandate to regulate resource extraction. It could potentially jeopardize the well being of IP communities.
On the transfer of the NCIP to the Office of the Executive Secretary, the IIPO argued that it poses risks to the autonomy of IPs and raises doubts on the impartiality and effectiveness of the NCIP in safeguarding IP rights and welfare. The Office of the Executive Secretary holds significant authority, and placing the NCIP directly under its supervision may subject the agency to undue political pressure. The said situation will compromise the Commission’s ability to prioritize IP rights and impartially address conflicts between IP communities and other stakeholders.
The IIPO also raised concern on the impact to the free and prior informed consent (FPIC) process with the transfer of the NCIP and ADO to different agencies as it will surely jeopardize the conduct of the said process in the future. It could also lead to disjointed and fragmented consultation processes involving multiple agencies and the lack of clarity and coordination could make it challenging for IP communities to effectively exercise their right to FPIC.
The IIPO called on Congress to carefully consider the possible consequences of the proposed challenges and ensure that the rights and voices of IPs are protected and respected.
The group also urged the government and all concerned stakeholders to reconsider HB 9608 and engaged in meaningful dialogue with IPs as it is essential to prioritize the welfare of the IPs, respect their rights and uphold the principles enshrined in the IPRA. By Dexter A. See
