Eroding indigenous peoples’ rights
Recent revisions to the guidelines of the indigenous peoples (IPs) law have raised questions about whether they serve commercial interests rather than the communities the framework was supposed to protect.
Last May, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) approved the revised “free, prior, and informed consent” (FPIC) guidelines, which shortened the period for indigenous communities to convene and build consensus on projects that may affect them.
From having no strict deadlines to hold assemblies under the 2012 implementing rules of Republic Act No. 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, they are now required to convene within 10 days after being notified about a new project; and 30 days for consensus-building compared to the two months they were previously allowed for consultations.
Article continues after this advertisement
The IP communities have, of course, viewed this as an erosion of their FPIC, with human rights organizations calling for a halt to the implementation of the new guidelines until they align with international standards.
Conflict of interest
The FPIC guidelines are meant to give IPs a crucial say before a land-altering activity or development—such as mining, logging operations, dam construction—can proceed, tap local resources, and affect their way of life.
The NCIP claimed that the changes resulted from more than a decade of thorough review, consultations, and dialogue with stakeholders, including indigenous communities and civil society organizations. It also touted that it has strengthened transparency and accountability in the FPIC process by imposing stricter disclosure requirements for project applicants, recognizing the precautionary principle for projects that pose significant environmental and cultural risks, advancing human rights monitoring, and clarifying rules against conflict of interest.
But if there really were meaningful dialogues with stakeholders, why are representatives and advocates from IP communities very vocal in calling out NCIP for not being inclusive during the review process? Their consensus is that the new rules prioritize faster approval of commercial projects over conducting genuine consultation. Were the revisions triggered by the frequent delays of government and infrastructure projects due to legal challenges involving ancestral domains?
Article continues after this advertisement
Pax Silica hub
The NCIP must answer these issues.
This becomes even more crucial in the face of the proposed Pax Silica hub in New Clark City that could affect the farmlands and ancestral lands that hundreds of indigenous Aeta families have called home for generations. Threats to IP’s ancestral domains have existed for decades, but they have become more pervasive as development projects have increasingly taken over the country’s remaining natural resource frontiers.
The 2022 State of the Indigenous Peoples Address Report by the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center stated that about half, or at least 1.25 million hectares, of ancestral domains were under environmental threat. The research organization found that 83 out of 410 environmentally critical projects (ECPs) in the country at the time were situated within or close to lands under registered certificates of ancestral domain titles (CADTs), or IP’s formal tenurial instrument for ancestral lands under RA 8371.
Article continues after this advertisement
The report found that 49 percent of mining projects conflicted with CADTs, while 87 percent of forest areas covered by large-scale logging conflicted with registered ancestral domains. It further pointed out that extractive industries such as logging, mining, and quarrying constituted at least 51 percent of all ECPs, or projects that create significant ecological risks, like massive disturbance and pollution of land, waterways, air, climate, and biodiversity.
Macli-ing Dulag
These ancestral rights disputes have also claimed the lives of many indigenous Filipinos. One of the most prominent cases was that of Macli-ing Dulag, a fierce opponent of the Chico River hydroelectric dam project in the Cordillera region, who was killed in 1980. His death became a symbol of indigenous resistance and led to the cancellation of the project, though this hasn’t stopped the rise of new proposals for the river’s development.
Many indigenous defenders have also been Red-tagged to justify state-sponsored violence against them. Last January, a military operation killed five civilians, including three Mangyan-Iraya children, in Occidental Mindoro, where IPs have long resisted mining operations.
The erosion of the FPIC process will only place more IP communities, already largely disenfranchised and displaced in the name of national development, in danger. It is paradoxical that the NCIP, the institution mandated to promote and protect the rights and well-being of IP communities, would undermine the consultation process meant to guarantee informed consent over the future of their ancestral territories.