Human Rights Law

Indigenous People Sector

Achas, Joshua Rey
Bantilan, Cedric Dave
Chaves, Neil Clark
Gonzales, Rafael Francesco
Minorca, Earlcen
Pador, Emil Joy
Real, Sheen Mark
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Digest

The UDHR came as a response to the horrors of the second world war.
There was a collective realization among members of the United Nations that,
following to world wars in less than half a century, the collective rights of people
have been neglected and that the world at large had seemed to grow accustomed to
the brutality and savagery that is unavoidable in warfare. Thus the need for the
UDHR

Articles 1 and 2 of the UDHR speak of human dignity, equality, and kinship.
Articles 3-11 are the articles on individual rights; the right to life, right against
slavery and torture, equal protection of the law are found therein. Articles 12-17
are the rights of individuals in the civil and political context such as the right to
property and the right to movement. Articles 18-21 are the spiritual and religious
rights of individuals such as the freedom of thought and conscience, the right to
opinion, the right to peaceful assembly and association, and the right to vote.
Human beings have the right to speak freely, to believe and be free from fear from
whatever it is belief they hold. Articles 22-27 are the social, economic and cultural
rights of the individual. They include the right to work, the right to rest and leisure,
the right to a decent standard of living, and the right to education. Articles 28-30,
are the pediment that binds these four categories of rights together. They remind us
that rights come with obligations, and that none of the rights mentioned in the
UDHR can be used to violate the spirit of the United Nations. The rights to be
protected by laws are also embodied herein.

The four subdivisions: rights of individuals, civil and political rights,

religious and spiritual rights, and social economic and cultural rights all cover
facets of life that are common among all people. The UDHR does not seem to
leave out anything that is not relevant to the human experience.

The Universal Declaration of Human rights recognizes the inherent dignity

and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. This is
the basis for all the rights embodied therein. That as much as there are distinctions
between classes or race or gender, the common points shared by all human beings
are dignity and inalienability of rights.
 UDHR in relation to the Indigenous People Sector

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) articulates the

fundamental rights available to ALL people, and there are no exceptions. These
rights are inalienable and includes civil and political rights, like the right to life,
liberty, free speech and privacy. It also includes economic, social and cultural
rights, like the right to social security, health and education.

The Indigenous People Sector in the Philippines comprises all of the

Indigenous communities and tribes in our country. These people only comprise a
small percentage in our population but they are the ones who protect most of our
natural resources. Many of the members of these sector are affected by poverty,
and many of them are lacking in education, which is vitally important in today’s
era. Without proper education and support, these people are almost rendered
powerless in our society.

With the UDHR in effect, Indigenous people are bestowed with the same
rights and capacities with us. They have civil, political, economic, social, and
cultural rights and also have the capacity to enter into agreements and contracts.
However, in reality, these people are treated like they have no rights at all. For
instance, they are usually deprived of their territories when there is a conflicting
land claim between them and private parties even if there is already the UDHR and
even the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) in effect, which recognizes the
rights of the Indigenous people. Some are even killed without even having his day
in court, and rampant discrimination isolates them from the rest of society. As a
result, justice is denied as to them.

To conclude, even if there are laws like the IPRA and the UDHR that
support the Indigenous people sector, in an age where money is king and
knowledge is power, the members of the Indigenous people sector are still
powerless from the capriciousness and whimsical abuses of society. What they
need most is recognition and acknowledgement that they are in the same level with
us as persons and they have rights too.
 Cases in Indigenous People Sector Digest

Isagani Cruz vs Secretary of DENR

Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian

Doctrine

GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

FACTS:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and
mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain
provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s
Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The
petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that
these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the
public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation
of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:

No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the
IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the
natural resources within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural
resources in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights granted by
the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains
merely gives them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are
found, the right to the small scale utilization of these resources, and at the same
time, a priority in their large scale development and exploitation.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the
public domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title,
which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant
from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of
their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the
right to alienate the same.

Unduran V. Aberasturi

GR. 181284 .

Facts:

Petitioners are members of the Miarayon, Lapok, Lirongan, Talaandig Tribal

Association (MILALITTRA), or Talaandig tribe, who claimed to have been living
since birth on the land located at Barangay Miarayon, Talakag Bukidnon,
Mindanao, which they inherited from their forefathers. Respondents, represented
by attorney-in-fact Ramon Aberasturi, claimed to be the lawful owners and
possessor of an unregistered parcel of agricultural land

On March 3, 2004, respondents filed a Petition for Accion Reivindicatoria, with

Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary
Prohibitory Injunction with Damages... before the Regional Trial Court of Manolo
Fortich, Bukidnon (RTC)

On March 23, 2004, the rest of the petitioners filed their Motion to Dismiss,
alleging that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case.

Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). As awardees of a CADT,

petitioners argued that NCIP has exclusive and original jurisdiction over the case,
as the subject matter concerns a dispute and controversy over an ancestral
land/domain of Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs)/Indigenous Peoples
(IPs).

On July 1, 2004, the NCIP through Atty. Melanie Pimentel, filed a Motion to Refer
the Case to the Regional Hearing Office-National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (RHO-NCIP), alleging that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter.

Issues:

In resolving the pivotal issue of which between the RTC and the NCIP has
jurisdiction over the respondents' amended complaint,

Ruling:

The petition has no merit.

Court disagrees with their contention that petitioners do not have legal capacity or
standing and locus standi to file the petition, for failure to show that they are
members of IPs/ICCs, or that they are authorized to represent the Talaandig tribe.

That petitioners are the real parties in interest can be gleaned from the Entry of
Appearance with Motion to Refer the Case to the Regional

Hearing Office of the NCIP[12] filed by the NCIP Special Transition Team-Quick
Response Unit (STRAT-QRU). The STRAT-QRU counsels alleged therein that the
respondents' complaint for recovery of ownership (accion... reinvidicatoria) sought
to recover an unregistered real property situated in Miarayon, Bukidnon, from
petitioners, all of whom are, with the exception of Nestor Macapayag and Mark
Brazil, member-beneficiaries of CADT No. R10-TAL-0703-0010 issued by the
NCIP in the name of the Talaandig Indigenous Peoples, located at Talakag,
Province of Bukidnon. In support of their allegation, petitioners presented a
certification[13] that the disputed land is within the area covered by the same
CADT, and the NCIP List of Beneficiaries of

Talaandig Ancestral Domain of Miarayon, Lirongan, Lapok, San Miguel, Talakag,

Bukidnon.[

In contrast, respondents failed to submit any evidence to dispute petitioners' claim

that they are members of the Talaandig Tribe. Hence, respondents' contention...
that petitioners have no legal standing to file the petition, is without merit. Having
spelled out the jurisdictions conferred by law to the RTC and the NCIP over the
subject matters of their respective cases, the Court now examines the allegations in
the original and amended complaints to find out which tribunal may properly
exercise jurisdiction over this case.

Respondents traced the provenance of their title over said land to one Mamerto
Decano, a Chieftain of Talaandig tribe, by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed on
July 27, 1957. They claimed that by means of fraud, stealth and surreptitious
means, petitioners entered the said... land, without permission and against the
consent of the landowners, caused damages therein and harassed respondents by
indiscriminately firing upon their farm workers.The Court therefore finds that the
CA correctly ruled that the subject matter of the amended complaint based on
allegations therein was within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Contrary to petitioners' contention, the mere fact that this case involves members
of ICCs/IPs and their ancestral land is not enough to for it to fall under the
jurisdiction of the NCIP under Section 66 of the IPRA, to wit:

A careful review of Section 66 shows that the NCIP shall have jurisdiction over
claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or
among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP.

The qualifying provision requires two conditions before such disputes may be
brought before the NCIP, namely: (1) exhaustion of remedies under customary
laws of the parties, and (2) compliance with condition precedent through the said
certification by the Council ofElders/Leaders. In this case, while most of the
petitioners belong to Talaandig Tribe, respondents do not belong to the same
ICC/IP. Thus, even if the real issue involves a dispute over land which appear to be
located within the ancestral domain of the Talaandig Tribe, it is not the NCIP but
the RTC which shall have the power to hear, try and decide this case. the Court
declares Rule IX, Section 1 of the IPRA-IRR,[23] Rule III, Section 5[24] and Rule
IV, Sections 13 and 14 of the NCIP Rules[25] as null and void insofar as they
expand the jurisdiction of the NCIP under Section 66 of the IPRA to include such
disputes where the parties do not belong to the same ICC/IP.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED

Court of Appeals Decision

AFFIRMED.
 Indigenous People Sector’s effect on the environment and
Protection of their rights

The indigenous peoples of the world affect the environment in a positive

way, in fact they are one of the most well-known protectors of the environment
today. From their methods in agriculture to their preservation of natural resources,
they are the ones who are less likely to cause environmental damage than the
others.

The OHCHR correlates the relationship between the IP and the environment.
In their “Leaflet No. 10: Indigenous Peoples and the Environment,” many of the
areas of highest biological diversity on the planet are inhabited by indigenous
groups. This is supported by the fact that the “Biological 17”, the 17 nations that
are home to more than two-thirds of the Earth’s biological resources, are also the
traditional territories of most of the world’s indigenous peoples. They further
summarized that:

The United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development (the Earth Summit), held in Brazil in 1992, represented
a turning point in the promotion of indigenous peoples’ rights relating
to the environment. A number of legal instruments adopted at the
Earth Summit, such as the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21 and the
Convention on Biological Diversity, established international legal
standards to protect indigenous peoples’ rights to their traditional
knowledge and practices in the area of environmental management
and conservation. Most importantly, there now exists an international
legal framework which recognizes the unique relationship indigenous
people have with their traditional lands.
 This Earth Summit, in particular, recognized that indigenous peoples and
their communities have a critical role to play in managing and developing the
environment. The importance of indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge and
practices was acknowledged, and the international community committed itself to
promoting, strengthening and protecting the rights, knowledge and practices of
indigenous peoples and their communities.

A part of the Biological 17, the Philippines has its fair share of indigenous
communities all across the archipelago. These communities remain steadfast in
their culture and tradition despite the rapid industrialization of the country. Thus,
to protect their interests, the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act was passed into law
by Congress so that the indigenous communities exclusively own and exploit
ancestral lands and domains. This is also to prevent greedy companies who will
exploit natural resources without any attempt to preserve them. Their natural
knowledge of their lands gives them a great advantage and knowledge on
preserving it.

In short, the indigenous peoples affect the environment in a better light as

they are the ones who fully know the land well. Both local and international law
acknowledges and respects them in their effort to protect the various environmental
rights and to keep the lands entrusted to them by their forefathers in good shape for
the future generations ahead.