 |
 |
|||
 |
|
     |
||
| |
|
|||
|
|
|
||
Background
The Philippines was chosen as one of pilot areas for studying evidence-based national human rights diagnosis and monitoring under the Metagora Project 2 . This pilot survey covers three selected ancestral domains: Bago tribe in Sugpon, Ilocos Sur; the Kankanaey in Kibungan, Benguet; and the Bugkalot tribe in Aurora, Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino 3. The survey is complemented by focus group discussions and local consultations that are anticipated to generate results that will enhance the program and policy measures for effective governance of indigenous peoples’ rights utilizing rights based norms and standards in a democratic setting.
There are one hundred ten (110) indigenous ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines with an estimated total population of around 12 million found in the various parts of the country, comprising 17 percent of the total population 4. Because of historical discrimination and exploitation, they are considered marginalized and vulnerable. Current development efforts recognize the need to put the indigenous peoples (IPs) in the center of the development agenda particularly in ascertaining that their rights are protected and fulfilled.
The study is considered a milestone in that it will provide a benchmark on important aspects of the IPs level of awareness, knowledge and practices on their ancestral domains and ancestral lands albeit on a pilot level.
Study Objectives
The study was formulated:
To determine the level of awareness and perceptions of the IPs on their rights to ancestral domains and ancestral lands;
To describe their enjoyment/realization on one hand, and/or violations of rights to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, on the other;
To identify measures provided to IPs by governance stakeholders to enhance/facilitate the enjoyment of their rights to ancestral domains and ancestral lands; and
- To describe mechanisms availed of by IPs from their respective communities and the government to redress their grievances due to violation of their rights to ancestral domains and ancestral lands.
The study generated adequate, clear and objective assessment of awareness of IPs’ rights to ancestral domain and ancestral lands. The survey dealt in certain detail with various facets of human rights; awareness/perception, realizations and violations, enjoyment, as well as mechanisms available to redress violations of these rights. Some findings from the survey are complemented or substantiated by findings from the focus group discussions and local consultations.
KEY TABLES
Awareness on Rights to Ancestral Domains and Lands
Awareness of IPs rights generally high
There was a generally high level of awareness of all the specified rights as stated under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). Almost all of the respondents have correct perceptions on the right to develop land and natural resources as well as the right to safe and clean water. On the other hand, only 56.0 percent have correct perceptions on their rights in case of displacement.
Table 1 |
||||
All Tribes |
Bago |
Bugkalot |
Kankanaey |
|
All rights |
||||
Right of ownership |
94.1 |
89.3 |
95.7 |
94.8 |
Right in case of displacement |
56.0 |
68.7 |
38.9 |
72.4 |
Right to regulate entry of migrants |
91.9 |
92.0 |
89.4 |
95.2 |
Right to develop lands and natural resources |
99.3 |
98.0 |
99.4 |
100.0 |
Right to safe and clean water |
99.3 |
98.0 |
99.4 |
100.0 |
Right to claim parts of reservations |
68.1 |
59.3 |
71.7 |
68.4 |
Right to resolve conflict |
85.2 |
73.3 |
84.9 |
92.8 |
With full possession and ownership of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, IPs can be said to fully enjoy their rights as human beings. |
91.7 |
86.7 |
93.7 |
92.0 |
a - Respondents who answered at least half the number of statements/vignettes correctly |
||||
Tribe Awareness on Realization of Rights to Ancestral Domain Through Acquisition of Titles
Government leads in assisting IPs acquire titles to the ancestral lands and domains
Seven out of ten respondents or 70.8% are aware of the community acquisition of title to the ancestral domain. For respondents who are aware, 44.3% were assisted by the government in acquiring titles, 10.4% were helped by their tribal leaders/elders and 4.3% were provided assistance by the NGOs/POs.
| Table 2 AWARENESS OF RIGHT TO OWNERSHIP THROUGH ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO ANCESTRAL DOMAIN Percentage Distribution of Respondents |
||||
All |
Bago |
Bugkalot / Ilongot |
Kankanaey |
|
All respondents: |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Awareness of community acquisition of title to the ancestral domain |
||||
Aware |
70.8 |
67.3 |
79.4 |
60.8 |
Not aware |
24.3 |
24.0 |
17.4 |
34.0 |
Don't Know |
3.5 |
6.0 |
2.6 |
3.2 |
No Response |
1.3 |
2.0 |
0.6 |
2.0 |
Missing |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
For respondents who are aware: |
||||
Who assisted community in acquiring said title 1/ |
||||
Government |
44.3 |
63.4 |
33.5 |
51.3 |
NGO/PO 2/ |
4.3 |
2.0 |
4.7 |
5.3 |
Tribal Leaders/Elders |
10.4 |
7.9 |
11.5 |
9.9 |
Others |
10.5 |
6.9 |
0.7 |
30.9 |
Missing |
30.5 |
19.8 |
49.6 |
2.6 |
Benefits the community enjoyed because of the title 1/ |
||||
Affirmation of Culture |
20.7 |
41.6 |
18.3 |
11.2 |
Unity of Tribe |
24.5 |
41.6 |
20.5 |
20.4 |
Empowerment of the Tribe |
23.7 |
21.8 |
23.7 |
25.0 |
Others |
10.7 |
0.0 |
1.4 |
34.9 |
Missing |
21.3 |
0.0 |
36.0 |
8.6 |
1/ Total may exceed one hundred percent due to multiple responses |
||||
Violations of IPs Rights
Illegal entry cited as top violation of rights to ancestral domains and lands
Forty one percent of the respondents experienced violations of rights to ancestral domain and land. Of this figure, 64.9% experienced illegal entry, 48.7% had encroachment, 29.5% encountered pollution problems and 11.4% were displaced or relocated.
Table 3 |
||||
Type of Violation |
Total |
Bago |
Bugkalot |
Kankanaey |
All Respondents |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Not experienced violations |
35.5 |
22.9 |
28.0 |
36.8 |
Experienced violations |
41.1 |
20.8 |
56.9 |
35.6 |
Don't Know |
16.3 |
21.9 |
12.6 |
22.8 |
No response |
7.2 |
34.4 |
2.6 |
4.8 |
|
||||
Respondents who experienced violations |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Encroachment |
48.7 |
45.0 |
54.3 |
37.1 |
Pollution |
29.5 |
35.0 |
31.2 |
24.7 |
Illegal Entry |
64.9 |
40.0 |
81.4 |
33.7 |
Displacement/Relocation |
11.4 |
10.0 |
9.0 |
16.9 |
Others |
9.4 |
15.0 |
2.5 |
23.6 |
|
||||
Relocations Experienced
Most relocations / resettlements due to natural calamities
Natural calamity was identified as the main reason for the relocation/resettlement of IPs. A total of 13 households were relocated or resettled due to natural disasters.
| Table 4 RELOCATIONS EXPERIENCED Number of Households |
||||
| No. of Households | Total | Bago | Bugkalo | Kankanaey |
| Reason for Relocation/Resettlement | ||||
Natural Calamity |
13 | 1 | 9 | 3 |
Mining Exploration |
3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Infrastructure Development |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Armed Conflict |
1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Others |
4 | 0 | 3 | 1 |
Dont Know |
1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
No Response |
1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Missing Data | 12 | 0 | 1 | 11 |
| Total | 35 | 2 | 18 | 15 |
Reported Cases of Lands Taken Away
Fraud/deceit causes almost half of the reported cases of land taken away
Nearly thirteen percent of respondents reported that their lands were taken away. Of this proportion, 47.9 percent were taken by fraud/deceit and 23.4 percent taken by force.
Table 5 |
||||
|
Total |
Bago |
Bugkalot |
Kankanaey |
All Respondents |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Land was taken away |
|
|
|
|
Yes |
12.8 |
9.4 |
18.2 |
7.3 |
No |
85.7 |
88.6 |
80.3 |
91.5 |
Don't Know |
0.5 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
0.8 |
No response |
0.4 |
1.3 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
Missing Data |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
|
||||
For Respondents Whose Lands Were Taken Away: |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
How taken away |
|
|
|
|
By Force |
23.4 |
7.1 |
27.4 |
22.2 |
By Fraud/Deceit |
47.9 |
57.1 |
41.9 |
61.1 |
Gov't and Private Sector Projects |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Others |
18.1 |
0.0 |
22.6 |
16.7 |
Don't Know |
2.1 |
0.0 |
3.2 |
0.0 |
No response |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Missing |
8.5 |
42.9 |
3.2 |
0.0 |
For Respondents Whose Lands Were Taken Away: |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
By whom |
|
|
|
|
Government |
1.1 |
0.0 |
1.6 |
0.0 |
Private organizations |
2.1 |
7.1 |
0.0 |
5.6 |
Council of Elders/Leaders |
9.6 |
7.1 |
12.9 |
0.0 |
Private individuals |
55.3 |
50.0 |
56.5 |
55.6 |
Others |
21.3 |
0.0 |
21.0 |
38.9 |
Don't know |
2.1 |
0.0 |
3.2 |
0.0 |
No response |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Missing Data |
8.5 |
42.9 |
3.2 |
0.0 |
Mechanisms for Grievance/Redress: Institutions/Organizations That Resolved Land Issues
Barangay Councils and Councils of Elders serve as main venue for discussions of conflicts and problems on land issues
Conflicts and problems on land issues were mostly discussed in the respective Barangay Councils/Lupon (71.9%) and through the Council of elders/tribal leaders (64.9%).
Table 6 |
||||
|
Total |
Bago |
Bugkalot |
Kankanaey |
All Respondents |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Type of Organization / Institution Present in Community 1/ |
||||
None |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
Council of Elders/Tribal Leaders |
64.9 |
47.3 |
84.9 |
47.6 |
Bodong Holders/Peace Pact Bodies |
9.3 |
2.0 |
15.7 |
4.8 |
Barangay Council/Lupon |
71.9 |
87.3 |
53.4 |
88.4 |
Others |
5.2 |
1.3 |
3.7 |
9.6 |
Don't Know |
2.7 |
4.7 |
2.9 |
1.2 |
No response |
0.7 |
0.7 |
1.1 |
0.0 |
All Respondents |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Gone to Any of Above Organizations / Institutions |
||||
Yes |
42.4 |
20.7 |
52.9 |
40.8 |
No |
43.3 |
68.0 |
34.6 |
40.8 |
No response |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.6 |
0.4 |
Missing |
13.9 |
11.3 |
12.0 |
18.0 |
For Respondents Who have Gone to Any of Above Organizations / Institutions |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Participated in Discussions / decisionmaking process |
||||
Yes |
80.5 |
93.5 |
89.2 |
60.8 |
No |
17.9 |
3.2 |
9.7 |
37.3 |
Don’t Know |
0.9 |
0.0 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
No response |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Missing |
0.6 |
3.2 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
1/ Total may exceed one hundred percent due to multiple responses |
||||
Modes of Resolving Conflicts
Customary laws are main instruments in resolving the majority of conflicts
Around 52 percent of respondents recounted that land issues and problems were resolved through customary laws, while 29.1 percent resolved their conflicts through amicable settlements, and 13.1 percent referred to the right government institution.
Table 7 |
||||
|
Total |
Bago |
Bugkalot |
Kankanaey |
All Respondents |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Referred to right government institution |
13.1 |
22.7 |
12.0 |
8.8 |
Amicable settlement |
29.1 |
34.7 |
12.0 |
49.6 |
Customary Laws |
52.3 |
39.3 |
70.9 |
34.0 |
Others |
1.5 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
3.2 |
Don't Know |
3.2 |
2.0 |
3.1 |
4.0 |
No Response |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
Missing Data |
0.8 |
0.7 |
1.1 |
0.0 |
Customary Laws and Practices
Most IPs consider customary laws helpful in solving land issues
In communities with customary laws and practices, 68.6 percent of respondents were involved in the crafting of laws/practices. Majority of the respondents (89.5) considered the laws helpful in solving land issues.
Table 8 |
||||
|
Total |
Bago |
Bugkalot |
Kankanaey |
For Respondents in Communities with Customary laws and Practices |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Involvement in the Crafting of Laws/Practices |
||||
Yes |
68.6 |
69.5 |
74.6 |
50.6 |
No |
25.8 |
22.0 |
19.4 |
47.1 |
Don't Know |
3.3 |
5.1 |
3.6 |
1.2 |
No Response |
2.0 |
3.4 |
2.0 |
1.2 |
Missing Data |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
Consultation Done Before Implementation of Laws / Practices |
||||
Yes |
82.7 |
84.7 |
84.7 |
75.3 |
No |
7.9 |
0.0 |
10.5 |
5.9 |
Sometimes |
4.1 |
8.5 |
3.2 |
3.5 |
Don't Know |
3.8 |
5.1 |
0.8 |
11.8 |
No Response |
1.0 |
1.7 |
0.4 |
2.4 |
Missing Data |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
1.2 |
Considered the Laws Helpful in Solving Land Issues |
||||
Yes |
89.5 |
83.1 |
91.9 |
87.1 |
No |
1.3 |
0.0 |
1.6 |
1.2 |
Sometimes |
4.6 |
10.2 |
3.2 |
4.7 |
Don't Know |
2.6 |
1.7 |
2.4 |
3.5 |
No Response |
1.0 |
1.7 |
0.4 |
2.4 |
Missing Data |
1.0 |
3.4 |
0.4 |
1.2 |
Awareness of Legislative Measures Protecting Rights to Ancestral Domains and Lands
IPRA awareness higher than CARL and Philippine Constitution
More than half of the respondents were aware of the IPRA, 36.7 percent were aware of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), while 33.5 percent were aware of the Philippine Constitution.
Table 9 |
||||
|
Total |
Bago |
Bugkalot |
Kankanaey |
All Respondents |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Philippine Constitution |
33.5 |
48.3 |
30.5 |
28.8 |
Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) |
54.5 |
42.3 |
67.0 |
44.4 |
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) |
36.7 |
41.6 |
34.8 |
36.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
1/ Total may exceed one hundred percent due to multiple responses |
|
|||
___________________
1 2005 Pilot Study on the Diagnosis of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights to Ancestral Domains in the Philippines, Book I: The Study and its Findings. This document has been produced within the framework of the METAGORA Project implemented by the OECD with financial assistance of the European Union, France, Sweden and Switzerland
2 Metagora, a 24-month pilot project “Measuring Democracy, Human Rights and Governance” is a project under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), implemented by the OECD-Paris21 with funding from the European Commission. The Philippines conducted one of the pilot studies with the Commission on Human Rights as Partner Implementing Organization, and the following as strategic partners: NSCB, National Statistics Office, Statistical Research and Training Center, and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.
3 No generalization for the whole Philippines was done in the study.
4 Office of Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC) & Office of Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) 1996 Accomplishment Report
 |
 |
|||||||
  E-mail the webmaster |
Terms of Use |
Home • Top of Page | ||||||
1997-2013,
National Statistical Coordination Board |
||||||||
Factsheet: