By Josiah David Quising, a Filipino human rights lawyer currently working for the Philippine-Misereor Partnership Inc. (PMPI) as its campaign lawyer for the Rights of Nature, and a part-time faculty at the Far Eastern University – Institute of Law.

The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of the Philippines (IPRA) was enacted in 1997 to recognize and promote the rights of indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples in the Philippines. The law was created to address the historical injustices committed against indigenous peoples and to provide them with a legal framework for their rights. However, there have been criticisms that IPRA has not been fully implemented and that it has failed to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.

Inadequacy  of IPRA to protect Indigenous Peoples rights

In 2017, in celebration of IPRA’s 20th anniversary, 103 indigenous men, women and youth acting as representatives of 39 indigenous peoples from across the country made a strong statement, expressing their disappointment with the implementation of the law:

20 years since the adoption of the IPRA, and ten years after the ratification of the UNDRIP [United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples], we continue to lose our lands, territories and resources, are unable to fully access basic social services, are subjected to various forms of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings and displacements, threats to our leaders and other atrocities perpetrated by government and paramilitary forces, rebels and other armed groups remain unresolved, as a result of our experiences of historical discrimination and marginalization.

The statement pointed out the gap between good intentions expressed in laws, and programs and effective implementation on the ground. In particular, it highlighted that the right to Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of relevant indigenous communities was ‘continuously manipulated, violated and undermined’ and that the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT) process did not guarantee land tenure security while being ‘tedious, expensive, complicated and problematic’.

Last October 2022, at the 25th IPRA Commemoration, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Tebtebba Executive Director Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz  reiterated the continuing discrimination of Indigenous Peoples, destructive agri-business expansions and mining practices, extrajudicial killings, and other human rights violations experienced by local communities.[1]

Clearly, even after more than two decades of legislative recognition, Indigenous Peoples rights remain elusive for our indigenous communities.

Recent international developments on Indigenous Peoples’ rights as a sign to review IPRA

In recent years, Indigenous Peoples have been getting more recognition in the international arena. For instance, in April 2022, speakers at the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues pressed United Nations bodies across the system to expand resources and opportunities for indigenous representatives so that they may participate in the Organization’s work.[2]

On March 30, 2023, in a welcome development, the Vatican released a statement rejecting the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’, a 500-year-old Catholic decree that was used to justify the seizure of indigenous lands by colonial powers.[3] The action was highly commended by José Francisco Calí Tzay, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, urging all States that apply the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ to follow the lead of the Vatican in formally repudiating the decree and reviewing all jurisprudence and legislation that relies on it.[4] It may here be noted that the Doctrine of Discovery is the basis of  The Philippines’ Regalian Doctrine which provides that the State, by default, owns all lands – a presumption that has proven to be a hurdle in recognizing ancestral rights to land.

These recent progresses in Indigenous Peoples’ rights show a clear sign that it is high time for the Philippines to review its decades-old law. 

IPRA as stepping stone to recognition of Rights of Nature

According to the International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD), “indigenous lands make up around 20% of the Earth’s territory, containing 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity — a sign Indigenous Peoples are the most effective stewards of the environment”.[5] The unique position of Indigenous Peoples as natural environmental defenders and stewards of nature has been recognized by international courts. In Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that:

[T]he right to use and enjoy the territory would be meaningless for Indigenous and tribal communities if that right was not connected to the protection of natural resources in the territory. Therefore, the protection of the territories of Indigenous and tribal peoples also stems from the need to guarantee the security and continuity of their control and use of natural resources, which in turn allows them to maintain their lifestyle.[6](Emphasis added)

In La Bugal-b’laan Tribal Association, Inc. vs. Ramos, the Philippine Supreme Court recognized the need to balance the Philippines’ economic interests with the State’s duty to protect Indigenous Peoples’ rights and prevent irreversible ecological damage, to wit:

Whether we consider the near term or take the longer view, we cannot overemphasize the need for an appropriate balancing of interests and needs — the need to develop our stagnating mining industry … in order to jumpstart our floundering economy on the one hand, and on the other, the need to enhance our nationalistic aspirations, protect our indigenous communities, and prevent irreversible ecological damage[7]. (Emphasis added)

Section 7 of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act provides for the right of Indigenous Peoples to develop, control and use their lands and territories, which are part of the natural world and have intrinsic value beyond human use. This provision also acknowledges the responsibility of indigenous peoples to conserve natural resources within their territories and uphold them for future generations, which implies a respect for the rights of nature to exist, thrive and evolve.

On the other hand, Article 2, Section 16 of the Philippine Constitution provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rythm and harmony of nature. According to Oposa v. Factoran, the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature.” Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forests, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations.

Currently, there are four pending bills in the Philippine Congress that push for the recognition of the Rights of Nature. The bills plan to give natural ecosystems, populations, and processes legal rights in and of themselves, separate from the environmental rights, specifically – the right to exist; to the maintenance of the vital cycles, functions and processes that ensure their continued sustainability and well-being; to the conditions necessary for their renewal and restoration; and to adequate and effective representation vis-a-vis the protection and enforcement of these rights.

Clearly, IPRA has space for the Rights of Nature perspective as it is inherent in the Indigenous People framework to respect the rights of nature. As such, it is high time for us to look into the IPRA as a viable stepping stone for the recognition of the rights of nature. The cultural traditions of Indigenous Peoples in protecting the environment can function as a framework for the rights of nature to be accepted in the Philippine legal system. The strengthening of Indigenous Peoples rights, empowerment of Indigenous Peoples, and legislations of their own cultural environmental traditions can be used as basis for better protection of the environment.

The review and amendment of IPRA is necessary to address these issues and ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples are protected.

Photo: Bontoc, Philippines@Mikel on Unsplash.

[1] Statement of Ms Victoria Tauli-Corpuz for IPRA25 (tebtebba.org)

[2] Indigenous Peoples Representatives Must Be Included in Work of United Nations Bodies, Policy-Making Initiatives, Speakers Tell Permanent Forum | UN Press

[3] Joint Statement of the Dicasteries for Culture and Education and for Promoting Integral Human Development on the “Doctrine of Discovery” (vatican.va)

[4] UN expert hails Vatican rejection of ‘Doctrine of Discovery’, urges States to follow suit | OHCHR

[5] Policy Brief #36 Indigenous Peoples: Defending  an Environment for All

[6] Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador (Merits and Reparations) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No 245, 27 June 2012) [146].

[7] LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC vs. RAMOS, G.R. No. 127882 (2004)