The Philippines’ indigenous peoples – who comprise some 15 percent of the population and who are among the country’s poorest – have become more marginalized and impoverished under this government.
BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WATCH
Bulatlat
Vol. VIII, No. 27, August 10-16, 2008
When Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo delivered her State of the Nation Address (SONA) last July 28, there was one man in the House of Representatives gallery who, upon being acknowledged, stood up. He was wearing a G-string, his tribe’s traditional male attire, and for a moment he threatened to upstage the Malacañang occupant.
That man is Rosario Camma, the overall chieftain of the Bugkalot tribe of Quirino, Nueva Vizcaya, and Aurora. He is also the mayor of Nagtipunan, Quirino.
Arroyo cited him as one of the country’s local heroes. She credited him for his supposed work at improving his tribe’s livelihood following the release of their Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which covers 100,000 hectares.
“After the release of their CADT, Rosario Camma, Bugkalot chieftain, and now mayor of Nagtipunan, helped his 15,000-member tribe develop irrigation, plant vegetables and corn and achieve food sufficiency,” Arroyo said. “Mabuhay (Long live), Chief!”
Himpad Mangumalas, a member of North-Central Mindanao’s Higaonon tribe and the spokesperson of the Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayang Pilipino (KAMP or National Federation of Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines), said Camma was merely used by the Arroyo government for its propaganda purposes. “Mrs. Arroyo just used him so she could look good, so she could have something to show that would make her look like she is doing something to improve the lot of the indigenous peoples,” he said in an interview.
Mangumalas recounted his encounter with Camma in a recent congressional hearing. “He is one of the pro-mining mayors, one of those who really work hard so that prospective mining projects in his area could push through,” Mangumalas shared.
“Development” aggression
The KAMP spokesperson finds it regrettable that a pro-mining mayor could be declared as one of the country’s local heroes, because large-scale mining, he says, has been and continues to be the biggest problem facing indigenous peoples’ communities. He says mining – that is, the large-scale mining conducted by multinational corporations – has led to the destruction of resources in indigenous peoples’ ancestral lands – and, in the worst cases, has led to displacement.
Data gathered by KAMP show that of the 24 “priority mining areas” marked by the Arroyo administration, 18 are in indigenous peoples’ territories. Ten of these, Mangumalas said, are in Mindanao; the rest are in Palawan, the Mindoro provinces, the Cordillera region, and the provinces of Quezon and Rizal.
Aside from corporate mining, another major issue that directly affecting indigenous peoples is the construction of large dams and other energy projects, mostly funded by multilateral institutions like the World Bank (WB) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). A document submitted by the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Monitor (IPR-Monitor), the Tebtebba Foundation, and the Philippine Indigenous Peoples Link (PIPLinks) to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)* earlier this year, “The Human Rights Situation of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines,” states that “seven ‘priority’ large dams are to be built in locations that will directly affect indigenous communities.”
Mangumalas, meanwhile, cited the construction of the Sibulan Hydro-Electric Power Plant within the territory of Davao del Sur’s Bagobo tribe as one of the major energy projects adversely affecting indigenous communities.
“Development” aggression also takes the form of big agri-business projects, the creation of industrial zones, and so-called “eco-tourism,” among others. One major eco-tourism project cited by Mangumalas is the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway Project (SCTEP), which he said “has seized some land from Aeta communities.”
The document submitted by IPR-Monitor, Tebtebba Foundation, and PIPLinks describes the effects of development aggression thus:
“The widespread implementation of extractive industries and other development projects in indigenous territories without their consent is violating their collective rights and is worsening their marginalized situation… Their adverse impact (includes) the destruction of livelihoods, the environment, land, resources and properties and has also caused conflicts, divisions and the erosion of indigenous socio-political systems.”
Indigenous peoples’ rights
The enactment of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 was supposed to serve the purpose of protecting indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination, economic and social well-being, and cultural integrity. The IPRA, in particular, includes several provisions on the protection of ancestral domain and land rights, as well as the requirement of indigenous communities’ free and prior informed consent (FPIC) for any project to be implemented within their territories, particularly those which may affect them adversely.
Shortly after its enactment, the IPRA’s constitutionality was challenged before the Supreme Court. In 2000, the High Tribunal – then led by Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. – ruled in favor of the IPRA but affirmed the State’s “prior right” over natural resources while giving indigenous peoples stewardship “rights” over their land and resources.
Meanwhile there are laws that run contrary to indigenous peoples’ rights. The Mining Act of 1995 allows 100-percent ownership of land even in indigenous areas, paving the way for displacements. The National Integrated Protected Area Systems (NIPAS) imposes restrictions on indigenous communities in their own territories. The Forestry Code of the Philippines declares lands with 18-percent slope as “public lands” – making many indigenous peoples “squatters in their own land,” as the document submitted by IPR-Monitor, Tebtebba Foundation, and PIPLinks to the UPR puts it.
Militarization and killings
Mangumalas said that the destructive effects of what he described as “pseudo-development projects” are aggravated by militarization. Militarization, he said, facilitates the implementation of “development” projects that adversely affect indigenous communities. “The military are normally used to quell any sign of local opposition,” he said.
“The entry of these so-called development programs is facilitated by military deployment and operations,” he explained. “The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) even resorts to recruitment for paramilitary troops from among IP civilians, just to ‘secure’ the current government’s economic targets in the rural areas,” he said.
In not a few cases, militarization in furtherance of “development” projects have led to the killings of indigenous people who have dared to resist for the sake of preserving their way of life.
KAMP has documented a total of 130 indigenous people killed since 2001 – when Arroyo was catapulted to power through a popular uprising. Thirty-six of them are massacre victims, Mangumalas said, while eight are leaders of indigenous communities.
“Most of these killings happened in Mindanao, where there are a lot of ‘development’ projects,” Mangumalas said. “Several of these killings also occurred in Cordillera, where there are many large-scale mining projects.”
Struggle
The Philippines’ indigenous peoples – who comprise some 15 percent of the population and who are among the country’s poorest – have become more marginalized and impoverished under the Arroyo administration, Mangumalas said. He said this leaves them no choice but to unite with other sectors pushing for Arroyo’s removal from office.
“We are not saying that her removal would immediately change things,” he said. “But that could pave the way for changing things, for the improvement of the lot of indigenous peoples and the rest of the population.” Bulatlat
*The UPR is a new mechanism that was established under General Assembly Resolution 60/251, which established the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council) on March 15, 2006. The said resolution provides that the UNHRC shall “undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies…” BULATLAT.COM
Barangay RP 
Leave a comment