Removing the Red Tape: Prevalence of Discrimination of Indigenous Communities

With the Indigenous People Rights Act of 1997

Amador, Paulo
Delos Reyes, Vhone
Ignacio, Emmanuelle Christian
Madamba, Frances Anne Margaret
Miranda, Selina Alessandra
Solidum, Carmela Loreena
Tamin, Joseph Emmanuel

Midterm Requirement For Philosophy Of Law

1st Semester, SY 2017-2018 (Section 1A)
Submitted Prof. Eugenio Villareal
October 2017
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............. 1

I. Introduction .......... 2
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) ........... 3
Issues within the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) ........ 5
II. Theories of Law ....... 7
Theory of Law that Addresses the Social Ill .......... 7
Clash of Natural Law and Legal Positivism .......... 8
Justice as Fairness .......... 9
III. Legal Solution ...... 10
Review of Implemented Policies and Actions ..... 11
Proposed Law ....... 12
IV. Conclusion .... 13
V. Bibliography .......... 14

1
 I. Introduction
Around 14 to 17 million of the estimated 103 million inhabitants in the Philippines are
Indigenous Peoples (IPs), spreading across about 110 ethno-linguistic groups. Majority of the
Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) are located in the Mindanao region (61%) while the
rest are distributed among the Northern Luzon (33%) and Visayas (6%) regions. 1 Despite
composing a significant percentage of the total population, scantily any effective policies,
national or local, have been legislated and implemented, and, if such, have a multitude of
loopholes and drawbacks, which ironically hinder them from garnering equal protection and
attaining their ancestral lands.2

Indigenous peoples commonly have subsistence economic practices, are pantheists or

animists, and are multi-lingual. However, because indigenous peoples in general are one of the
poorest and most marginalised sectors, the Philippine Constitution sought to respect, recognise,
protect, and uphold their rights by establishing the Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). 3

For instance, in a phone interview with Jimid Mansayagan, the leader of Lumad
Mindanao, an indigenous perspective was gleaned, which shed light on their experience and
understanding of their situation. Mansayagan harkens back to their livelihood as a people. He
says they used to be a hunter-gathering society and used the analogy of the forest as their
refrigerator.4 However, he laments that everything has changed ever since the forests
disappeared. They now experience starvation for long periods of time; they have to endure
around 3 to 4 months of hunger. Indigenous people in Central to South and South-Eastern
Mindanao are the most vulnerable. The changing climate has led to a disruption of their planting
and gathering cycle. The Lumads utmost tragedy is where the government legally confiscated
their land, claiming development for their welfare, which remains elusive in their favor. Hunger

1
United Nations, People's Empowerment Is Key Means to Achieving Sustainable Development, Other Vital Goals,
Secretary-General Tells International Conference, UN News Center, (2012).
2
Id.
3
An Act to Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples,
Creating a National Commission, Establishing Implementing Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and For
Other Purposes [The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997], Act No. 8371 (1997).
4
Interview with Mr. Jimid Mansayagan through mobile phone call (Apr. 3, 2017).

2
and widespread poverty perpetually plague the area, causing desperation to seek other livelihood
and vulnerability to illness, misery, and indoctrination by insurgent groups.5

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA)

One of the laws enacted to theoretically protect the welfare and uphold the interests of
indigenous communities is the Republic Act No. 83716, otherwise known as the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act of 1997, which defines Indigenous Peoples as
a group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription
by others, who have continuously lived as organised community on communally bounded
and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial,
occupied, possessed and utilised such territories, sharing common bonds of language,
customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to
political, social and cultural inroads of colonisation, non-indigenous religions and
cultures, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. IPs shall,
likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from
the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonisation or at
the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures or the establishment of
present state boundaries who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural
and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains
or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains..7

Indigenous peoples are generally one of the poorest and most marginalized sectors.
Congress, acknowledging the plight for their rights to be recognized, upheld, and protected,
enacted R.A. 8371. Section 2 paragraphs (a) and (b) thereof respectively provide that the state
shall recognize and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs within the framework of national unity and
development8 and that 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

5
Interview with Mr. Jimid Mansayagan through mobile phone call (Apr. 3, 2017).
6
An Act to Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples,
Creating a National Commission, Establishing Implementing Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and For
Other Purposes [The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997], Act No. 8371 (1997).
7
Id. 3 1.
8
Id. 2, 2.

3
customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of
ancestral domain.9

Through a cornerstone feature of the IPRA, the indigenous peoples were allowed access
to obtain their Certificate on Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which a legal title that formally
recognizes their territorial claims and management of ancestral domains. Forming their historical
ascendancy and ancestral heritage, their land is sacrosanct and a symbol of their identity, hence,
needs to be defended and preserved for all future generation. Therefore, if ancestral land is lost,
the clan or tribe is concurrently lost. No one is allowed to sell the land because the all
generations, present and future, are all entitled to them. 10 Thus, it is incumbent upon the
government to ensure that the latters lands are not being encroached upon.

The instituted law provides protective mechanisms for the IPs of the Philippines. The
most pertinent parts of the law are as follows:

Chapter I, Section 2. Declaration of State Policies

Chapter III. Rights to Ancestral Domains
Chapter IV. Right to Self-governance and Empowerment
Chapter V. Social Justice and Human Rights
Chapter VI. Cultural Integrity
Chapter VII. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
Chapter IX. Jurisdiction and Procedures for Enforcement of Rights

Issues within the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA)

9
Id. 2, 3.
10
Plant, R., & Austria-Young, J., Regional: Targeted Capacity Building for Mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples
Concerns in Development. Asian Development Bank National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of the
Government of the Philippines, (2011).

4
 While the law states that the IPs have the right to self-govern, ancestral domain, social
justice, human rights, equal protection, non-discrimination, and for the preservation of cultural
integrity, many IPs still face discrimination and marginalisation.11

According to Chapter II, Section 3, Subsection k of RA 8371, the NCIP shall be the
primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies,
plans and programs to recognize, protect and promote the rights of IPs. This includes the
discretionary approval of which IPs to grant the CADT (Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title)
or CALT (Certificate of Ancestral Land Title) to. However, despite the presence of the IPRA as
well as the NCIP, multifarious hurdles hinder the Indigenous Peoples acquisition of land rights.

First, the severely inadequate budget of the NCIP has rendered it ineffectively unable to
competently implement the IPRA Law for the Indigenous People.

Second, the burdensome and meticulous legal processes, as well as the onerous financial
prerequisites of obtaining a CADT, serve fundamental barriers to those Indigenous People with
no assets and poor literacy. Adding middlemen in government agencies pose as further
complication in expanding bureaucracy that creates an abusive and deceptive environment
(Romualdo, 2012). The difficult compliance with the bureaucratic process runs counterintuitive
to the intent of the legislative to provide for an untrammelled exercise of such rights. Under the
NCIP, the Ancestral Domains Office shall issue, upon the free and prior informed consent of
the ICCs/IPs concerned, certification prior to the grant of any license, lease or permit for the
exploitation of natural resources affecting the interests of ICCs/IPs or their ancestral domains
and to assist the ICCs/IPs in protecting the territorial integrity of all ancestral domains.12

Third, NCIPs exceedingly controversial history where numerous cases of the legitimacy
and transparency of the said agency has been questioned. Some of these cases are: the
manipulation of the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FCIP) process in Bakun, Benguet in
favour of the mining application of the Royalco (2009), manipulation of FPIC process for the

11
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997.
12
Id. 46, 1.

5
entry of big energy projects such as Chevron in Guinaang, Kalinga, and Hedcro in Sabangan, and
Philcarbon in Sagada, Mountain Province Cause of boundary disputes and tribal conflicts due to
CADTs, issuance of questionable CADTs to bogus claimants, and no protection, intervention nor
action to protect IPs from militarisation, bombing, extrajudicial killings, and human rights
violation committed by State military and companies in protecting capitalist and destructive
projects.13

Lastly, the problematic structure of the NCIP itself causes, according to Dr. Raymundo
Rovillos, the chancellor of UP Baguio, a mismatch between job descriptions and the actual
skills of the people in the NCIP. He also mentioned that a lot of the NCIP staff came from the
Office for Northern Cultural Communities and Office for Southern Cultural Communities,
Marcos-era precursors of the NCIP, which most are not qualified to perform the much broader
mandate of the NCIP.14 The officers and employed workforce of the committee are ill equipped
to handle the duties incumbent upon them. Thus, theres a demand for members that are more
knowledgeable on the IPs themselves.

Therefore, the social illness that the proponents will be addressing is the deceptive use of
the law, specifically the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, towards vulnerable these
minorities as a unjust deterrent in regaining acquisition of rightful ancestral land seized from
them rather than in upholding principles aiding the reclamation of the same.

II. Theories of Law

Theory of Law that Addresses the Social Ill

13
Cordillera Peoples Alliance, IPRA and NCIP: 17 Years of Indigenous Peoples Rights Violations, available at
https://cpaphils.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/ipra-and-ncip-17-years-of-indigenous-peoples-rights-violations/ (last
accessed Oct. 23, 2017).
14
Llaneta, A. C., The Road Ahead for the Indigenous Peoples, available at http://www.up.edu.ph/the-road-ahead-
for-the-indigenous-peoples/ (last accessed Oct. 23, 2017).

6
 Given the analysis by Altman and Brix, they will be consolidated in order to develop a
theory that will address the societal ill that is being tackled. As stated earlier, the societal ill that
will be tackled is the use of the IPRA law contradictory to what it was intended to do.

Brix divides the theory of Natural Law into two groups: traditional and modern.
Proponents of the traditional theory adhere to the general principle that there is a higher law
that is made the standard against which man made law is judged, and to which the moral validity
of man made laws are ascribed.15 While the modern theorists focus more narrowly on the
understanding of law as a social institution or practice,16 Lon Fuller, posits that there is no sharp
distinction between law and morality because the internal morality of a law is based on its
adherence to principles of legality, wherein good law is not its compliance with a higher
standard, but rather the specific utility it provides.17

The policy of the statute, or the purpose for which it was enacted is prescribed in the
declaration of its state policy. The last paragraph thereof provides 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, their rights to
their ancestral domains.18

It has been previously shown that instead of easily facilitating the availment of the granted
rights of ICCs, the NCIP, more often than not, acts in a manner inimical to those rights which the
legislature sought to protect. Neither does it comply with its purpose nor provide the utility for
which the law intended to provide. Hence, the IPRA, insofar as it establishes the NCIP,
according to the theory of Fuller, cannot be regarded as good law.

Andrew Altman discusses the four elements of morality, which are (1) obligating us to
act in certain ways, (2) going above and beyond the call of duty, (3) the motives from which a
morally good person acts, (4) the qualities of character that help a person act in ways that are

15
Brian Brix, Natural Law Theory, in A C P L L T 211 (2010).
16
Id. at 218.
17
Id. at 219.
18
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, 2 (f).

7
obligatory or praiseworthy.19 Hence, in the IPRA, the supposed obligation of government shall
be morally founded, not only providing equitable and just means of protecting rights of
indigenous people, but also in going above and beyond the call of duty by not supplying a
haphazardly created law but a policy straying away from red tape, and installing protocols and
safeguards from government abuse and manipulation, which has not been mediated yet in the
current IPRA.

Taking all of these into account, the theory of law that was developed hinges on the
principles of a higher law while remaining consistent with the characteristics of the four elements
of morality and the idea of law as a social institution. In this theory, the four elements of morality
are guided by the higher law, which is the inherent sense of right and wrong. Law as an
institution comes into play when people act within the higher law, which creates the law that acts
as a social institution. Hence, higher law still dictates the basis for the creation of the law. In
addressing the IPRA Law, the followed higher law is dictated by the sense of right, wherein the
the Indigenous People should be legally given back their rightful ancestral domain. By taking
these lands, the higher law is disrupted as the innate sense of right of wrong leans towards evil in
claiming property that is not the persons belonging in the first place. The four elements of
morality obligates the person to follow the higher law in acting towards prioritizing the return of
the lands of the Indigenous People.

Clash of Natural Law and Legal Positivism

Natural lawyers and positive lawyers are said to have contrasting views especially when
it comes to the concepts of legality and authority.20 Positivists account for both legality and
authority while natural law fail to do so. In natural law, morality has authority. Morality gives
the people a reason to comply with the law. This makes laws authority independent on the
21
authority of morality. As for positivism, a law or a legal norm has legality and authority
regardless of the moral value, the determining factor not being a higher standard, but the source
which is, according the Austin, the will of the people.

19
Andrew Altman, Law and Morality, in A A L: I T L P 44 (1995).
20
Jules L. Coleman & Brian Leiter, Legal Positivism, in A C P L L T
229 (2010).
21
Id. at 230.

8
 The position of Austin on positivism is the command theory which asserts that law
derives its authority as a command of the will of the sovereign. Legality then, as compared to
natural law, is determined by its source rather than a higher standard or sense of morality. The
source being the will of the sovereign, and the criteria to determine the validity of law is not
value, but matters of fact. On the account of this theory, a law is not law unless its non
compliance is threatened with a corresponding penalty, the penalty without which the law would
be unenforceable and merely a request. This position is in stark contrast with the Natural Law
theory which asserts that good laws are obeyed not because of a threatened sanction, but because
they demand moral compliance drawn from their accordance with a higher sense of morality and
law.

Moreover, in natural law, morality and law are intertwined. Agents obey the law for it is
presumed to be moral. In legal positivism, morality and law are not necessarily intertwined and,
hence, unnecessary for a legal norm to be a moral one.

In line with the natural law, the passed IPRA presumes to be moral as to supposedly
protect the rights of the indigenous people by protecting their ancestral lands from sectarian
intervention. However, positivist Hart claims that the main tenet of legal positivism is the
difference between what the law is and what it ought to be. The societal ill of applying IPRA
differently from how it is supposed to be applied illustrates the main tenet of positivism. IPRA is
ought to provide equal and just means in protecting these vulnerable minority. However, in
reality, the NCIP abuses the provisions stated in the IPRA through the delay of issuance of the
CADT to the intended beneficiaries and legally allowing private corporations to take advantage
of the acquisition of unowned land, which subsequently benefits the same for larger gains.
Justice as Fairness
John Rawls theory of justice contends that the two concepts of freedom and equality are
not mutually exclusive.22 He broke away with the traditional philosophical arguments about what
makes a social institution just and what justifies political or social actions and policies. After

22
See e.g. Ancestral Complaint, Phil. Daily Inq., December 26, 2014, available at
http://opinion.inquirer.net/81239/ancestral-complaint (last accessed October 28, 2017)

9
establishing the main characteristic of justice as fairness, and the theoretical superiority of this
approach to utilitarianism, intuitionism, among others, Rawls identifies two principles of justice:
One, that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic
liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others; and two, that social and
economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to
everyones advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.23

In the enactment of RA 8371, the State acknowledged the position of the indigenous
people as a defenseless group which have been historically excluded from socio-economic
opportunities and equal protection by the law. Thus, the law aimed to provide the IPs equal right
to the basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. However, the NCIP
took advantage of the implementation of this Act to act more for the benefit of the government
and big businesses rather than protect the rights and interests of the IPs. This is contrary to
Rawls principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. Taking into account
Rawls theory of justice and the current social ill of using the law to deliver injustice to the IPs
and ICCs, the Group proposes a theory that justice is relative to the interest of the people.
Fairness can never be administered if biases and selfish interests are not set aside.

III. Legal Solution

Review of Implemented Policies and Actions
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act is a law passed on October 29, 1997 which
recognizes and promotes all rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples of
the Philippines. The key provisions of this Act provides for the recognition, respect, and
protection of the right of empowerment and self governance, rights to ancestral domain, and
human rights of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples. 24

This Act was initially hailed as a Triumph of Political Will in the address presented at
the Embassy of the Philippines, Washington, DC.

23
J R , A T J 65 (1999)
24
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997

10
 The Law seeks to stop prejudices against tribal peoples through the recognition
of certain rights over their ancestral lands, and the right to live their lives in
accordance with their indigenous traditions, religions and customs. It is hoped
that with the enactment of this Law that the Philippine indigenous peoples will
now be able to eventually join the mainstream of Philippine society in community
development and nation building.25

Twenty years since IPRA was enacted, organizations of indigenous people assessed the
said law as a failure. This Act allowed for the creation of the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the government agency responsible for implementing the provisions
of the IPRA. Since its inception, however, the NCIP, rather than stand for the rights and
interests of Indigenous Peoples, has acted more for the benefit of the government and big
businesses, according to Piya Malayao, secretary general of Katribu, a national alliance of
indigenous groups in the Philippines. 26

The lapses in this Act paved way for a blatant disrespect for indigenous laws and customs
to accommodate big business interests. Actual events have shown that the the NCIP has acted
more in partnership with the powerful in securing ancestral land titles for commercial use.
Among others, there were subversion of the process for acquiring FPIC, non-recognition of
legitimate indigenous representatives, and negotiating with fake indigenous leaders.27 The
multiple issues raised in the preceding chapters in connection with the doctrines laid down by H.
L. A. Hart with relevance to his idea of Primary and Secondary Rules are to be addressed by the
following proposed amendments.

Proposed Law
First, the law will address the lack of defined measures and policies with which to
implement a more inclined IPRA to the needs and concerns of the Indigenous People considering

25
Thomas N. Headland, The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act A Triumph of Political Will, Address at the
Embassy of the Philippines, Washington, DC (December 18, 1998) (transcript available at http://www-
01.sil.org/silewp/1999/004/silewp1999-004.html#ASAA_ref (last accessed October 28, 2017))
26
Interview by Mark Ambay III with Piya Malayao, Secretary General, KALIBU, in Manila (October 16, 2016).
27
See e.g. Ancestral Complaint, Phil. Daily Inq., December 26, 2014, available at
http://opinion.inquirer.net/81239/ancestral-complaint (last accessed October 28, 2017)

11
their lack of knowledge. RA 8371 acknowledges the fact that these people are secluded
communities with their own customs and rules, and as such, the policies therein must be more
accommodating to their situation. According to Rawls Theory of Justice, one of the principles
he laid down is that social and economic inequalities are to be distinguished and arranged so that
they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyones advantage, and (b) attached to positions
and offices open to all.28 Knowing the situation of the Indigenous people, the law must be given
to its effect, a more inclined measure and policy towards the indigenous people. This is the
primary rule contemplated by H. L. A. Hart in which such rule must be explicit and mandates an
act or prohibition.29 In this case, the proposed law must be more defined than that which is
already there in order to give effect of the intentions of such.

Second, the proposed law will include an additional provision that will add a function and
improve the implementation of the Office of Empowerment and Human Rights (par. E, sec. 46).
The OEHR is the office tasked to ensure that the socio-political, cultural, and economic rights of
the IP are recognized and respected. The proposed law shall include a specific and detailed
implementation of such mission. This amendment, in line with Harts view on the Union of
Primary and Secondary Rules, aims to address the problem of uncertainty on the part of the
indigenous people with regard to their rights. It shall be addressed through seminars,
conventions, and integration with which the OEHR shall oversee as part of their mandate. This
would assist the indigenous people in knowing what their right are in the eyes of the law and
how they could assert them as well.
Lastly, in order to tackle the numerous controversies in which private entities take
advantage of the ignorance of the indigenous people in connection with the laws, the proposed
law shall amend and revise the penalties imposed by Chapter XI upon those who shall violate the
prohibitions defined in RA 8371 with a higher and stricter fines. The amendment shall impose a
minimum of three (3) years but not more than twelve (12) years imprisonment or a fine of not
less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200, 000) but not more than Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500, 000) from the original minimum of nine (9) months imprisonment and a minimum
of one hundred thousand pesos (P100, 000).

28
A T J , supra note 22 at 52.
29
H.L.A. H, T C L 94 (1961).

12
Conclusion
Republic Act no. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 was enacted by the
legislature to formally recognize and to further promote the rights of the indigenous people living
in the Philippines.30 Currently, around 14 to 17 million of the estimated 103 million inhabitants
in the Philippines are considered as Indigenous People, spreading across about 110 ethno-
linguistic groups.31 The law itself is a good measure in addressing the concerns of the indigenous
people and their plight when it comes to ownership of ancestral domains, but as such, it is still
vulnerable to abuses by both the private entities as well as the agency tasked to foresee the

It is evidently seen that the intent of the legislature was to acknowledge rights of the
Indigenous Peoples and protect them, acknowledging the transcendental necessity of giving
everyone what is due to him, in accordance with the theory of Natural Law.

However, applying the principles of discussed, R.A. No. 8371 fails to gain proper standing
as a good and valid law. Under the Legal Positivism theory of Fuller, the law must fulfill the
purpose for which it was enacted, which the IPRA fails to do, as previously discussed. Similarly,
according to Rawls, the NCIP fails to this day to fulfill its statutory mandate and therefore runs
counter to his theory of granting more in law to those who have less in life.

30
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997,
31
United Nations, People's Empowerment Is Key Means to Achieving Sustainable Development, Other Vital
Goals, Secretary-General Tells International Conference, UN News Center, (2012).

13
Bibliography

United Nations, People's Empowerment Is Key Means to Achieving Sustainable Development,

Other Vital Goals, Secretary-General Tells International Conference, UN News Center, (2012).

An Act to Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/
Indigenous Peoples, Creating a National Commission, Establishing Implementing Mechanisms,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and For Other Purposes [The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of
1997], Act No. 8371 (1997).

Interview with Mr. Jimid Mansayagan through mobile phone call (Apr. 3, 2017).

Plant, R., & Austria-Young, J., Regional: Targeted Capacity Building for Mainstreaming
Indigenous Peoples Concerns in Development. Asian Development Bank National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples of the Government of the Philippines, (2011).

Cordillera Peoples Alliance, IPRA and NCIP: 17 Years of Indigenous Peoples Rights
Violations, available at https://cpaphils.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/ipra-and-ncip-17-years-of-
indigenous-peoples-rights-violations/ (last accessed Oct. 23, 2017).

Llaneta, A. C., The Road Ahead for the Indigenous Peoples, available at
http://www.up.edu.ph/the-road-ahead-for-the-indigenous-peoples/ (last accessed Oct. 23, 2017).

Brian Brix, Natural Law Theory, in A C P L L T

211 (2010).

Andrew Altman, Law and Morality, in A A L: I T L

P 44 (1995).

Jules L. Coleman & Brian Leiter, Legal Positivism, in A C P L

L T 229 (2010).

Ancestral Complaint, Phil. Daily Inq., December 26, 2014, available at

http://opinion.inquirer.net/81239/ancestral-complaint (last accessed October 28, 2017)

J R , A T J 65 (1999)

Thomas N. Headland, The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act A Triumph of Political Will,
Address at the Embassy of the Philippines, Washington, DC (December 18, 1998) (transcript
available at http://www-01.sil.org/silewp/1999/004/silewp1999-004.html#ASAA_ref (last
accessed October 28, 2017))

Interview by Mark Ambay III with Piya Malayao, Secretary General, KALIBU, in Manila
(October 16, 2016).

14
See e.g. Ancestral Complaint, Phil. Daily Inq., December 26, 2014, available at
http://opinion.inquirer.net/81239/ancestral-complaint (last accessed October 28, 2017)

H.L.A. H, T C L 94 (1961).

15
 Amador, Paulo

Delos Reyes, Vhone

Ignacio, Emmanuelle Christian

Madamba, Frances Anne Margaret

Miranda, Selina Alessandra

Solidum, Carmela Loreena

Tamin, Joseph Emmanuel

16