MESSAGE

Twenty-one years ago, a landmark piece of legislation was ratified

in the Philippines. Said legislation put us on the world map as one
of the first nations putting forward the interest of the Indigenous
Peoples (IPs) while consciously striving further towards our
nation’s development. This piece of legislation guaranteed the
rights of IPs to ancestral domain, self-governance and empowerment,
human rights, and cultural integrity.

And on its 21st year, we look back to its journey. Maintaining

hindsight of the past, as we the IPs, continue to aspire for that
ever elusive social justice which the landmark legislation sought
to deliver. Republic Act 8371 or known as the Indigenous Peoples
Right Act of 1997 pioneered a radical dogma into our Philippine
legal system that seemed to be not in consonance with the highest
law of the land – the 1987 Constitution.

This is as far as principles on Sate ownership of land and natural

resources is concern. Back and forth IPRA was deliberated only to
meet a stalemate vote at the end which favoured heavily the IPs
maintaining IPRA to be constitutional.

The rich history of the Cordillera struggle became the beacon of

our highest magistrates in arguing constitutionality of IPRA. The
true spirit of IPRA cannot be appreciated and construed without
reviewing the struggles of the IPs in view of their distinct
sociology and the labyrinths of its history. Our magistrates’
decision upholding the constitutionality of IPRA became a legal
precedent that forms part of the laws of the land which the NCIP
espouses till this day.

How IPs became squatters to their own land?

Long before our colonizers docked our shores, an existing

educational, economic and socio-political system among the natives
was already in place. Communal ownership of land is the system
being applied by natives to vast lands which they share to their
fellows collectively. Private ownership on the other is defined
through one’s capacity of tillage.

When the Spanish came and staked their flags on our lands, they
imposed the feudalistic policy of ‘Jura Regalia’, a concept of land
ownership wherein they declared all lands they conquered belongs to
the King of Spain. The capacity of the State to own or acquire
property is the state's power of dominium. This was the foundation
for the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudalistic approach.
This feudalistic approach became a legal concept of land ownership
in our country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal
Cedulas.
The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and
conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive patrimony
and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish Government took
charge of distributing the lands by issuing royal grants and
concessions to Spaniards, both military and civilian. Private land
titles could only be acquired from the government either by
purchase or by the various modes of land grant from the Crown.

For centuries, natives mostly in the mountains here in the north

and the south have warded off entry from the Spanish colonizers.
Thus, boasting our claim that we were never conquered making us
Indigenous.

Institutionalized non recognition of IP land rights

The Regalian doctrine was further enshrined in the 1935

Constitution. One of the fixed and dominating objectives of the
1935 Constitutional Convention was the nationalization and
conservation of the natural resources of the country. There was an
overwhelming sentiment in the Convention in favour of the principle
of state ownership of natural resources and the adoption of the
Regalian doctrine.

State ownership of natural resources was seen as a necessary

starting point to secure recognition of the state's power to
control their disposition, exploitation, development, or
utilization. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention very
well knew that the concept of State ownership of land and natural
resources was introduced by the Spaniards. This however, they were
not certain whether it was continued and applied by the Americans.
To remove all doubts, the Convention approved the provision in the
Constitution affirming the Regalian doctrine.

In a nutshell, what this tells us is that during the Spanish era,

“All lands belong to the Crown/King”. When the Americans came they
did so little to amend this principle of land ownership where they
impliedly affirmed the feudalistic narrative of the Regalian
Doctrine stating that “All lands belong to the State”. It is clear
that recognition of Indigenous people claim to land ownership was
set aside.

Be that as it may, our framers of the 1987 Constitution somewhat

gave us the chance to correct these injustices. They have provided
us non executing provisions, back by centuries of injustice, as our
hammers and anvils in forging a legislation in rectifying ills
bestowed upon IPs, who only did was to gallantly practice what was
prudent during those times of colonization – resist.

Cordilleran resistance before IPRA

So by now at this juncture, by connecting these dots of our rich
history, we can already grasp the reasons why IPs of Cordillera
resisted to the so-called development projects from the World Band
founded Chico Dams in Kalinga, to the vast logging concession of
the Cellophil Resource Corporation in Abra. This was in response to
the late President, Marcos’ statement; that the IPs are the ones to
sacrifice for the greater majority. The word ‘sacrifice’ was a
loose term used in placed of word ‘surrender’.

Here we see how Cordillerans’ value land. One cannot speak of the
Cordillera struggle without mentioning the names of our martyrs;
Ama Macliing Dulang who was gunned down in cold blood, and Padre
Dungoc, Dulag’s companion during the assassination, who managed to
escape then later joined the armed resistance.

Armed resistance has been waged in the region, as in fact a long

and burning, sustained one is still being waged simply because of
the monopolization power, leading to the exploitation of resources,
all benefits which ought to have been shared with, or enjoyed by
the people.

“Land is life”, were the immortal words of Ama Macliing Dulag.

Indeed, land is where life springs from and it is where we will lay
to rest. We don’t own the land; it is the land that owns us. Issues
affecting Cordillerans from then and now can be rooted to this
principle as to how we love and value our land.

Attached to our passion to defend our land, is our equal vigilance

in shielding our rich culture away from commercialization and
bastardization which the ever watchful eyes of NCIP have been,
always have, and continue to observe.

What is land to IPs anyway?

Land is the central element of the IPs existence. There is no

traditional concept of permanent, individual, land ownership. Among
the Igorots, ownership of land more accurately applies to the
tribal right to use the land or to territorial control. The people
are the secondary owners or stewards of the land and that if a
member of the tribe ceases to work, he loses his claim of
ownership, and the land reverts to the beings of the spirit world
who are its true and primary owners. Under the concept of
"trusteeship," the right to possess the land does not only belong
to the present generation but the future ones as well.

Customary law on land rests on the traditional belief that no one

owns the land except the gods and spirits, and that those who work
the land are its mere stewards. Customary law has a strong
preference for communal ownership, which could either be ownership
by a group of individuals or families who are related by blood or
by marriage, or ownership by residents of the same locality who may
not be related by blood or marriage.

The system of communal ownership under customary laws draws its

meaning from the subsistence and highly collectivized mode of
economic production. The Kalingas, for instance, who are engaged in
team occupation like hunting, foraging for forest products, and
farming found it natural that forest areas, orchards, pasture and
burial grounds should be communally-owned. For the Kalingas,
everybody has a common right to a common economic base. Thus, as a
rule, rights and obligations to the land are shared in common.

Although highly bent on communal ownership, customary law on land

also sanctions individual ownership. The residential lots and
terrace rice farms are governed by a limited system of individual
ownership. It is limited because while the individual owner has the
right to use and dispose of the property, he does not possess all
the rights of an exclusive and full owner as defined under our
Civil Code. Under the Kalinga customary law, the alienation of
individually-owned land is strongly discouraged except in marriage
and succession and except to meet sudden financial needs due to
sickness, death in the family, or loss of crops.

Land titles do not exist in the indigenous peoples' economic and

social system. The concept of individual land ownership under the
civil law is alien to them. Inherently colonial in origin, our
national land laws and governmental policies frown upon indigenous
claims to ancestral lands. Communal ownership is looked upon as
inferior, if not inexistent.

Reconciling IP land ownership to the Regalian Doctrince

Recognizing the contrasting views land ownership defined by IPRA

against the Regalian Doctrine, our highest Supreme Court
magistrates turned to the landmark case of Mateo Carino VS Insular
Government in settling doubts. The issue among many others, if
whether or not, IPs’ claim to land ownership through ancestral land
title and ancestral domain is contrary to the concept of Regalian
Doctrine enshrined in the Constitution.

The right of ownership and possession of the IPs to their ancestral

domains is held under the indigenous concept of ownership. This
concept maintains the view that ancestral domains are the IPs
private but community property. It is private simply because it is
not part of the public domain. But its private character ends
there. The ancestral domain is owned in common by the IPs and not
by one particular person, take for example here in Happy Hallow
ancestral domain.

Communal rights to the land are held not only by the present
possessors of the land but extends to all generations of the IPs,
past, present and future, to the domain. This is the reason why the
ancestral domain must be kept within the IPs themselves. The domain
cannot be transferred, sold or conveyed to other persons. It
belongs to the IPs as a community.

Ancestral lands are also held under the indigenous concept of

ownership. The lands are communal. These lands, however, may be
transferred subject to the following limitations.

Following the constitutional mandate that "customary law govern

property rights or relations in determining the ownership and
extent of ancestral domains," the IPRA, by legislative fiat,
introduces a new concept of ownership. This is a concept that has
long existed under customary law.

To be sure, the indigenous concept of ownership exists even without

a paper title. The CADT is merely a "formal recognition" of native
title. This is clear from Section 11 of the IPRA, to wit:
"Sec. 11. Recognition of Ancestral Domain Rights.- The rights
of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains by virtue of Native
Title shall be recognized and respected. Formal recognition,
when solicited by ICCs/IPs concerned shall be embodied in a
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title, which shall recognize
the title of the concerned ICCs/IPs over the territories
identified and delineated."

Let’s all note that Ancestral lands and domains where private since
time immemorial thus cannot be subject under Regalian Doctrine
whose scope is limited only to Public Lands.

Giving recognition to IPs to their rights to their ancestral land

is one of many functions which IPRA has bestowed upon the NCIP. And
with the IPs of Happy Hallow in possession with their CADT, may it
serve it true purpose and may the IPs dwelling within rekindle its
spirit.

In this year’s celebration, with theme “Empowering Cordillerans

Towards Comfortable Life” may we reminded yet again; that while we
pursue that elusive comfortable life, let’s not lose focus in our
advocacy at hand, the advocacy of indigenous peoples rights did not
end with the passage of a law. Same goes that the struggles of
Happy Hallow did not end when they were granted with the CADT. The
people of Happy Hallow and the entire IPs throughout the nation,
know too well that; it is a continuous struggle to rid our
countries of injustices introduced by colonizers. It is about
changing mindsets and prejudices.

Happy happy IP Month celebration!