Indigenous People's Rights Act (IPRA)

up to 15 per cent of the Philippine population - about ten million people - belong to distinct indigenous
communities and retain a close link with their traditions. They avoided Hispanisation during Spain's 350-
year colonization of the Philippines. In 1987, after the fall of the Marcos regime, a revised Philippine
Constitution recognized the ancestral land rights of indigenous people, and ten years later, in 1997,
those rights finally became law in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act.

The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) is modelled on the provisions of the UN Draft Declaration on
Indigenous Peoples' Rights. In theory IPRA is one of the most enlightened laws dealing with Indigenous
Peoples, recognizing the free prior and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples, and asserting
that in the absence of such a clear level of consent, a project cannot proceed. In practice however, this is
regularly undermined, not least by legislation such as the 1995 Mining Code, which in many cases gives
mining claims to the same Indigenous land supposedly covered by IPRA. Indigenous Peoples
communities and organizations, and their supporters, have been vocal in fighting for their legal rights for
many years, and the struggle
chttp://www.piplinks.org/indigenous_rights/Indigenous+People%27s+Rights+Act+(IPRA).htmlontinues.

What are human rights?

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex,
national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our
human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary
international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights
law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order
to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.

What it means to violate Human Rights

There is now near-universal consensus that all individuals are entitled to certain basic rights

under any circumstances. These include certain civi1 liberties and political rights most

fundamental of which is the right to life and physical safety. Human rights are the articulation of

the need for injustice, tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity in all of our activity.

Speaking of rights allows us to express the idea that all individuals are part of the scope of

morality and justice.

To protect human rights is to ensure that people receive some degree of decent humane treatment.

To violate the most basic human rights, on other hand; is to deny individuals their fundamental

moral entit1ements. It is in a sense, to treat them as if they are less than human and undeserving
of respect and dignity. Examples are acts typically deemed “crimes against humanity,” including

genocide, torture, slavery, rape, enforced sterilization or medical experimentation, and deliberate

starvation. Because these policies are sometimes implemented by governments, limiting the

unrestrained power of the state is an important part of international law. Underlying laws that

prohibit the various “crimes against humanity” is the principle of nondiscrimination and the

notion that certain basic rights apply universally.

The Right of Aboriginal People

On the 13th of September 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This document strives to protect the rights of
aboriginal people in different countries. These protections go deeper than basic human rights, and
include rights to land preservation, self-determination, self-government, language, religion, and cultural
heritage. Unsurprisingly, many countries were opposed to this declaration and continue to ignore some
of its points even today. Considering the fact that a General Assembly Declaration is not a legally binding
document in the eyes of international law, these countries remain within their rights to do so.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was developed to help aboriginal communities
preserve their cultures and identities, as well as acquire a certain amount of independence. The rights of
the indigenous peoples are difficult to define, due to the fact that each aboriginal nation has functioned
as a distinct society long before their first contacts with the Europeans. As such, these rights were
developed by the inner workings of the legal systems of these societies. The declaration aims to ensure
that these rights are not infringed upon by the laws imposed by the external sources. It took over
twenty-five years to develop this document, but it is still considered lacking by many of the UN member
countries.

The reception of this declaration was highly controversial. On one hand, African countries accepted it
willingly and with vigor. Bolivia was the first country to adopt the declaration as a legal law. They
embraced this policy with all they had because of the years of horrid discrimination and scorn that local
people suffered at the hands of aliens from other countries. However, Canada, the USA, New Zealand,
and Australia rejected the declaration right away. Their main concerns revolved around the rights to
land and independence. Considering the highly unstable situation with the local indigenous
communities, the adoption of this declaration could have caused civil wars in these countries.

Despite the fact that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not a legally binding
document and adopting the principles it advocates cannot be enforced by the UN, the opposing
countries eventually changed their minds. Some shrewd political maneuvering allowed them to adopt
the declaration with some changes that prevented the occurrence of conflicts.
Aboriginal people are still discriminated against in many countries. However, the adoption of the
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a major victory in the fight against this situation.
Hopefully, further work in this direction will produce even better results.

rapidwrite.com (c) 2010-2018. all rights reserved.

Republic Act No. 8371

October 29, 1997

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES

METRO MANILA

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371

AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL

COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, CREATING A NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES,
ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

General Provisions

SECTION 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as “The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997”.

SECTION 2. Declaration of State Policies. — The State shall recognize and promote all the rights of
Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) hereunder enumerated within the framework of
the Constitution:

a) The State shall recognize and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs within the framework of national unity and
development;

b) The State shall protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains to ensure their economic, social
and cultural well-being and shall recognize the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or
relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain;

c) The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to preserve and develop their
cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national laws and policies;
d) The State shall guarantee that members of the ICCs/IPs regardless of sex, shall equally enjoy the full
measure of human rights and freedoms without distinction or discrimination;

e) The State shall take measures, with the participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned, to protect their rights
and guarantee respect for their cultural integrity, and to ensure that members of the ICCs/IPs benefit on an equal
footing from the rights and opportunities which national laws and regulations grant to other members of the
population; and

f) The State recognizes its obligations to respond to the strong expression of the ICCs/IPs for cultural
integrity by assuring maximum ICC/IP participation in the direction of education, health, as well as other services of
ICCs/IPs, in order to render such services more responsive to the needs and desires of these communities.

Towards these ends, the State shall institute and establish the necessary mechanisms to enforce and guarantee
the realization of these rights, taking into consideration their customs, traditions, values, beliefs, interests and
institutions, and to adopt and implement measures to protect their rights to their ancestral domains.
http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1997/10/29/republic-act-no-8371/

1. What are human rights?

Human rights, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, refers to norms that aim to protect people
from political, legal, and social abuses.

The United Nations (UN) defines human rights as universal and inalienable, interdependent and indivisible, and
equal and non-discriminatory.

Universal and inalienable:

Human rights belong to all and cannot be taken away unless specific situations call for it. However, the deprivation
of a person's right is subject to due process.

Interdependent and indivisible:

Whatever happens to even one right – fulfillment or violation – can directly affect the others.

Equal and non-discriminatory:

Human rights protect all people regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, and political leaning, among
others. They should be respected without prejudice.

Human rights can also be classified under individual, collective, civil, political, economic and social, and cultural.

2. What laws or legal documents ensure the human rights of Filipino citizens?

The rights of Filipinos can be found in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Also called the Bill of Rights, it
includes 22 sections which declare a Filipino citizen’s rights and privileges that the Constitution has to protect, no
matter what.
Aside from various local laws, human rights in the Philippines are also guided by the UN's International Bill of
Human Rights – a consolidation of 3 legal documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

As one of the signatories of these legal documents, the Philippines is obliged to recognize and apply appropriate
laws to ensure each right’s fulfillment.

This is not always the case, however, as the Philippine Constitution lacks explicit laws to further cement specific
human rights in the local context.

For example, the Right to Adequate Food may be included in the UNDR but it is not explicitly indicated in the
Philippine Constitution. Thus, the government cannot be held responsible if this is not attained. (READ: Zero
Hunger: Holding gov’t accountable)

3. Who oversees the fulfillment and protection of human rights in the Philippines?

Human rights are both rights and obligations, according to the UN. The state – or the government – is obliged to
“respect, protect, and fulfill” these rights.

Respect begets commitment from state that no law should be made to interfere or curtail the fulfillment of the
stated human rights. Protecting means that human rights violations should be prevented and if they exist,
immediate action should be made. In the Philippines, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) primarily handles
the investigations of human rights violations. However, it has no power to resolve issues as stated in the Supreme
Court decision in 1991.

Established in 1986 during the administration of President Corazon Aquino, CHR is an independent body which
ensures the protection of human rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Aside from investigations, it also provides assistance and legal measures for the protection of human rights guided
by Section 18 Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution.

www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/114698-human-rights-philippines

Republic Act No. 8371 | GOVPH

AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL

COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, CREATING A NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSESCHAPTER IGeneral Provisions

SECTION 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as “The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997”.

SECTION 2. Declaration of State Policies. — The State shall recognize and promote all the rights of

Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) hereunder enumerated within the

framework of the Constitution:

a) The State shall recognize and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs within the framework of national

unity and development;

b) The State shall protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains to ensure their economic,

social and cultural well being and shall recognize the applicability of customary laws governing property

rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain;

c) The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to preserve and develop

their cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national laws and

policies;

d) The State shall guarantee that members of the ICCs/IPs regardless of sex, shall equally enjoy the

full measure of human rights and freedoms without distinction or discrimination;

e) The State shall take measures, with the participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned, to protect their

rights and guarantee respect for their cultural integrity, and to ensure that members of the ICCs/IPs benefit

on an equal footing from the rights and opportunities which national laws and regulations grant to other

members of the population; and

f) The State recognizes its obligations to respond to the strong expression of the ICCs/IPs for

cultural integrity by assuring maximum ICC/IP participation in the direction of education, health, as well as

other services of ICCs/IPs, in order to render such services more responsive to the needs and desires of

these communities.

Towards these ends, the State shall institute and establish the necessary mechanisms to enforce and

guarantee the realization of these rights, taking into consideration their customs, traditions, values, beliefs,

interests and institutions, and to adopt and implement measures to protect their rights to their ancestral

domains.
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/phi13930.pdf

Human Rights-Militarization

Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines face a range of threats from what they frequently describe as 'development
aggression'. As they struggle to defend their land, much of it is in areas of forest or mountain that are rich in
natural resources and so conflicts often arise with companies, many of them based outside the Philippines, who
want to exploit those resources - mostly without the consent of the Indigenous Peoples.

The main problems that Indigenous Peoples face are from large-scale mining that digs up their land, in the
construction of large-scale dams that floods their land, in widespread logging that deforests their land, or in the
creation of nature reserves or agriculture that sees them ejected from or restricted in access to their own land.
All of these activities can lead to conflict which leads to militarization of their land, and in loss of livelihood or
encroachment of settlements which can lead urbanization.
http://www.piplinks.org/development_issues/Human+Rights-Militarisation.html

On the other hand, under

the Philippine Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997,

indigenous peoples are also called “indigenous cultural communities” which is defined

as a group of people or homogenous societies who have continuously lived as organized

community on communally-bounded and defined territory since time immemorial. Under

claims of ownership, indigenous peoples in the Philippines occupied, possessed customs

and tradition and other distinctive cultural traits by resisting the political, social and

cultural inroads of colonization and non-indigenous religions and culture, and became

historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. The indigenous peoples have

retained their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions but may have been

displaced from their traditional or ancestral domains at the time of conquest or

colonization and the establishment of present State boundaries.4

In the context of the

Philippine definition of indigenous cultural communities, however, the use of the word

“cultural” may suggest the commodification and exploitation of indigenous peoples

culture for tourist promotion, a reductionist view of the situation of indigenous peoples in

the Philippines.5

The Philippine Constitution of 1987

The 1987 Constitution84 contains provisions dealing with the State’s absolute

control over natural resources, including fisheries and other coastal resources, while also

giving attention to local communities and indigenous peoples. The Philippine

Constitution states that all-natural resources are owned by the State and that the “State

may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter in co-production, joint-venture, or

production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at

least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.”85 However, the

Philippine Constitution also allows the small-scale utilization of natural resources.

Furthermore, the constitution provides that the “State shall protect the nation’s marine

wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and

reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.”86

Specific in Article 12, Section 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution indicates that: “The State, subject to
the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the
rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and
cultural well-being. The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property
rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.”87

Also, Article 2, Section 22 (on Declaration of Principles and State Policies),

Article 12, Section 5, (on National Economy and Patrimony), Article 13, Section 6 (on

Social Justice and Human Rights), and Article 14, Section 17 (on Education, Science and

Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports of the 1987 Constitution also provides the legal

framework to protect the rights of indigenous peoples in the Philippines. These

constitutional and legal safeguards protecting the rights of, and giving preferential

treatment to indigenous people, exist as a necessary measure of social justice and

equity.88

Relevant to social justice and human rights of every Filipino citizen, Article 13,

Section 1 indicates that, “The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of

measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce

social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably

diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. To this end, the State shall

regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments.”

Section 2 of the same article indicates that the promotion of social justice shall include

the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and selfreliance.

In the context of resource management and environmental protection, the

Philippine Constitution provides the democratization of access to resources,89 social

justice in terms of preferential use of subsistence fisherfolk,90 and the right of the people

to a balance and healthful ecology. Additionally, Article 12, Section 5 of the Constitution guarantees that, “The
State

subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and
programs shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral

lands to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being.”

2.3.5 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997

The Philippine Constitution is the fundamental basis for the Indigenous Peoples’

Rights Act.102 The law protect the rights of the indigenous in the utilization of natural

resources within their ancestral domain.103 Before any person is allowed access to these

resources, a Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) of the community should be obtained in

accordance with customary laws.104 While the recognition of the rights of the indigenous

peoples in their ancestral domain and cultural integrity is explicitly provided under the

Constitution, the lobby for an enabling statue to implement the Constitutional mandate

was a very long and difficult process. It took a decade to pass the IPRA. IPRA was first

filed in the Congress sometime in 1987 during the 8th Philippine Congress and was

finally enacted in October 1997 during the 10th Philippine Congress.105

During the 8th Philippine Congress, Senate Bill No. 909 was filed as a response to

the Constitutional mandate to Congress to enact a law that will protect the rights of the

indigenous peoples. The bill was subjected to deliberation in the Senate floor but was not

enacted into law. Subsequently, during the 9th Philippine Congress, Senate Bill Nos.

1029, 1849 and 2056 were successively introduced. These bills, however, were never

sponsored and deliberated upon.106

Finally, the 10th Philippine Congress, through the sponsorship of Senator Juan

Flavier introduced Senate Bill No. 1728. After exhaustive deliberation, both Houses

passed the bill into law. Republic Act No. 8371 or IPRA was signed into law by President

Fidel Ramos on 20 October 1997. It became effective on 22 November 1997. Its

Implementing Rules and Regulations were approved on 9 June 1998.107

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 recognizes the property rights of

indigenous peoples over their ancestral domains and ancestral lands. A traditional tribal

council (composed of the tribal chief, council members and spiritual advisers) is

recognized by the law to draft policies on natural resource use and development plans in
the ancestral domain. The tribal council can exercise their rights by invoking the use of

traditional tribal justice systems as a sign of their cultural identity and autonomy from the

national laws.108

Section 3.a. of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 defines ancestral

domain as to include all areas generally belonging to indigenous peoples comprising

lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of

ownership, occupied or possessed by themselves or through their ancestors whether

communally or individually since time immemorial except when interrupted by war,

force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of

Government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by Government and

private individuals, corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic,

social and cultural welfare.205

http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/capistrano_0910_
philippines.pdf

Rights of indigenous peoples

Indigenous peoples are descended from ethnic groups which lived in the country or in a geographical area, to
which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present day state
boundaries and who have retained some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

By virtue of their special relationship with land and water, indigenous peoples require different rights compared
with other minorities to develop their identity and culture. In international law, the regulatory framework for
indigenous peoples is more far-reaching than that for other minority groups in a country.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

In 2007, following more than 20 years of negotiations, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Representatives of the world’s indigenous peoples, including the Sami people of the
Nordic region, actively participated in the work. A total of 143 countries voted in favor of the declaration, while 11
abstained and four voted against it (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA). However, those that voted
against the declaration have changed their positions and now support it.

In connection with the adoption of the declaration, Sweden gave an explanation of vote which, on the one hand,
clarified that the collective rights contained in the declaration are not human rights, since these can only be
individual and, on the other, interpreted the term ‘right of self-determination’, particularly in relation to land rights
and the responsibility to consult.

indigenous Peoples worldwide number between 300-500 million, embody and nurture 80% of the world’s cultural
and biological diversity, and occupy 20% of the world’s land surface. The Indigenous Peoples of the world are very
diverse. They live in nearly all the countries on all the continents of the world and form a spectrum of humanity,
ranging from traditional hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers to legal scholars. In some countries, Indigenous
Peoples form the majority of the population; others comprise small minorities. Indigenous Peoples are concerned
with preserving land, protecting language and promoting culture. Some Indigenous Peoples strive to preserve
traditional ways of life, while others seek greater participation in the current state structures. Like all cultures and
civilizations, Indigenous Peoples are always adjusting and adapting to changes in the world. Indigenous Peoples
recognize their common plight and work for their self-determination; based on their respect for the earth.

Despite such extensive diversity in Indigenous communities throughout the world, all Indigenous Peoples have one
thing in common - they all share a history of injustice. Indigenous Peoples have been killed, tortured and enslaved.
In many cases, they have been the victims of genocide. They have been denied the right to participate in governing
processes of the current state systems. Conquest and colonization have attempted to steal their dignity and
identity as indigenous peoples, as well as the fundamental right of self-determination.

Introduction

The rights of indigenous peoples under international law have evolved greatly since the late 1980s. Efforts by
indigenous peoples to get their rights recognized under international law started during the League of Nations in
the early 1920s, but it was only in 2007 that the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) adopted the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The adoption of the Declaration not only marks
an important moment in terms of lawmaking; it also represents the achievement of long decades of lobbying and
advocacy from indigenous peoples’ representatives. The UN declared the decade 1994–2004 as the First
International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, and later 2005–2015 was declared the second such
decade. The main objective was the strengthening of international cooperation for the solution of problems faced
by indigenous people in such areas as human rights, the environment, education, and health. As a result, in 2002,
the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was established as an advisory body to the UN Economic and Social
Council. But it was only in 2007 that the UN General Assembly adopted the UNDRIP, which universally proclaims
and consolidates a specific international legal corpus of rights for indigenous peoples. The adoption of the
Declaration is representative of the significant legal developments that took place during the period from 1989
until 2007, which arguably saw the development of a very large body of international law dedicated to the rights of
indigenous peoples. The international legal framework developed for and by indigenous peoples concerns general
human rights such as nondiscrimination and equality, as well as very specific collective rights such as self-
determination, cultural rights, land rights, and control over natural resources. The establishment of a specific
corpus of law dedicated to the rights of indigenous peoples, or sui generis rights, has also meant a proliferation of
scholarly literature in the last decades. The following entry does not propose to be exhaustive or comprehensive,
but rather to offer a review of some of the texts that can guide the researcher or the reader through the vast and
extensive existing legal literature. First, it focuses on some of the leading sources that provide a general overview
on the rights of indigenous peoples. It then examines the institutional and regional approaches. And finally, it
focuses on specific issues affecting indigenous peoples, namely historical claims, self-determination, land rights,
natural resources, and development. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-
9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0110.xml

Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be

pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect:

Article 1

Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective

or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms

as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights4

and international human rights law.

Article 2

Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other

peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind

of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that

based on their indigenous origin or identity.

Article 3

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue

of that right they freely determine their political status and freely

pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination,

have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to

4.Resolution 217 A (III).

their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing

their autonomous functions.

Article 5

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their

distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions,

while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in

the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

Article 6

Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.

Article 7

1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental

integrity, liberty and security of person.

2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom,

peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to

any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly

removing children of the group to another group.

Article 8

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be

subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and

redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them

of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values

or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing

them of their lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfers which has the aim

or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite

racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

Indigenous Peoples
Tied to Principles: 1 2

Many of the world’s resources are located on land owned or controlled by indigenous peoples. This means
businesses are frequently in close contact with indigenous groups and improving their relationships is becoming
increasingly important. Yet many of the world’s indigenous people have suffered abuse, discrimination and
marginalization, including at the hands of business. As a result, many indigenous people live in poverty. Their
cultures, languages and livelihoods are threatened.

The UN estimates that there are over 370 million indigenous peoples living in over 90 countries. They are
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of commercial development and business activities. In some cases, the
damage they’ve experienced cannot be undone.

Indigenous people can contribute significant knowledge, helping businesses better understand local operating
contexts. When businesses treat indigenous people with understanding and respect, they are also more likely to
obtain and maintain their social license to operate. Investors, local communities and other stakeholders now
expect them to do this.

Respecting the rights of indigenous people can also help avoid expensive operational risks. Risks could include
work stoppages, blockades or lawsuits.

We believe there are opportunities to involve indigenous people in business ventures as owners, suppliers,
contractors and employees. This can contribute to the long-term success of projects and help embed business in
the local community.

The term indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) was used in the Philippine Constitution to describe a group of
people sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, and who have,
under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized a territory. Time immemorial
refers to a period of time when as far back as memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied,
possessed and utilized a defined territory devolved to them by operation of custom law/traditions or inherited
from their ancestors.

Both the terms IPs and ICCs refer to homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others,
who have continuously lived as a community on communally bounded and defined territory, sharing common
bonds of customs, traditions and other cultural traits, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads to
colonization, non-indigenous religions and culture. Whereas, the Filipino majority learned very well the ways of the
colonial masters by adapting to their laws and practices, the minority (IPs), consciously asserted the integrity of
their ancestral territories, pre-Hispanic native culture and justice systems which are viewed as diametrically
opposed to the majority's world view, but which the IPRA law attempts to recognize and interface with the
national legal system.

Ancestral Domains
The 1997 IPRA Law defines ancestral domains as "areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland
waters, coastal areas, and natural resources held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs,
by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the
present even when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a
consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private
individuals or corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall
include forests, pastures, residential, agricultural and other lands individually owned whether alienable and
disposable otherwise, hunting grounds, burial rounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural
resources and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had
access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs and IPs who are still
nomadic and or shifting cultivators."[5]

Ancestral domains include the spiritual and cultural bonds to the areas which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy and use
and to which they have claims of ownership (inherited from ancestors). This generally refer to areas which they
have possessed at a period of time when as far back as memory can go. Proofs of time immemorial possession
main may include testimony of elders, historical accounts, anthropological or ethnographic studies, names of
places, using dialect or language of indigenous peoples, genealogy, treaties or pacts, between or among
indigenous peoples and or other populations.[2]

Rights to Ancestral Domain[edit]

Chapter III, section 7 of the Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997 covers the 8 Rights to Ancestral Domain. This chapter
focuses on the identification and protection of the entitlement of the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICC), and
the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) as the proper owners of their ancestral land. The following rights are listed below:

This was implemented in order to stop the historical injustices experienced by the IPs. Despite the implementation
of the law since the year 1997, the IPs of the Philippines still persistently experience injustices. The IPs are
struggling fighting for their rights because they feel like the government has continued to neglect them.

The main criticism concerning R.A. 8371 is that it is ambiguous. One of the issues it encountered was that it is
inconsistent and conflicting with the Philippines’ constitution (2).

This has become the case because of the doctrine of jura regalia, which means that "all lands of the public domain
belong to the state" (2). The next problem encountered was that the ancestral domain rights’ legal
characterization as "private but communal" differentiated from the Philippines’ civil law's idea of co-ownership of
real property. This meant that areas in ancestral domains is shared by the members of the community, but that
does not mean that they are considered as co-owners of the said property according to the New Civil Code (2).

Section 57 of chapter VIII of the Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997 which states that:
Natural resources within Ancestral Domains - The ICCs/IPs shall have priority rights in the harvesting, extraction,
development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domain. A non-member of ICCs/IPs
concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and utilization of the natural resources for a period of
not exceeding twenty-five (25) years: provided, that a formal and written agreement is entered into with the
ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow such
operation: provided, finally, that the NCIP may exercise visitorial powers and take appropriate action to safeguard
the rights of ICCs/IPs under the same contract (1).

is also viewed as problematic (2) because being given

the right to be prioritized in terms of development, exploitation, extraction, or harvesting of natural resources
belonging in ancestral domains does not necessarily mean that an IP member is given the right of ownership of the
said natural resources (3). Section 57 does not really reject the jura regalia, also known as the Regalian Doctrine or
the Doctrine of Discipline expressed in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Philippine Constitutions (4). According to the
constitutions mentioned, the Regalian Doctrine expresses that "all lands of the public domain, as well as all-natural
resources enumerated therein, whether private or public land, belong to the State." (4). Most argue that the IPRA
is flawed because it violates this (4). Instead of protecting the rights of the IPs, Section 57 strengthens argument
that all-natural resources found in ancestral domains belong to the State (3).