SUPPORT THE CORDILLERA
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES'
RESISTANCE TO DESTRUCTIVE
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
by Cordillera Peoples Allianceon November 11, 2013
The concept of renewable energy can be deceptive. Power facilities that tap renewable sources of energy –
geothermal, hydro, wind, and the like – are often believed to generate little or no adverse impact on the environment
or on the people who live in the areas where these facilities are installed. But large hydroelectric dams are renewable
energy facilities. And the construction of large dams has already displaced at least 40 million people worldwide
(World Commission on Dams 2000). Among those who have been displaced by large dams are indigenous peoples
of the Agno river valley in the Cordillera region of northern Philippines. Their experience shows that if undertaken
on too large a scale, with only state and corporate interests in mind, and with no regard for the land or the people
they affect, renewable energy projects can destroy lives.
Globally, people are campaigning against continued reliance on fossil fuels for energy since these are the main
source of the greenhouse gas emissions that account for the climate crisis. However, big business is now capitalizing
on popular advocacy of renewable energy to devise profitable projects that appear to be environment-friendly but
will, in truth, impact heavily on ecosystems and on the communities that live within these.
In the Philippines, the legal framework for profiting on renewable energy is provided by the Electrical Power
Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA) and the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 (REA). The EPIRA handed over
power generation, transmission, and distribution from state-owned to capitalist-owned corporations, put the supply
of electricity on the commodities market, and deregulated pricing by producers as well as distributors. The REA
provided fiscal guarantees of high returns on investments in renewable energy projects.
Twelve years after the passage of the EPIRA, Filipinos are burdened with expensive electricity. The Philippines’
Department of Energy admits that the country ranks second to Japan in having the highest priced electricity in Asia,
averaging PhP 9.70 per kilowatt hour or USD 0.22/kWh, up from USD 0.08/kWh in 2001. Power generation is
dominated by old names in Philippine business – San Miguel, Aboitiz, Lopez, Ayala – plus the world leader in
geothermals, Chevron. Transmission is the monopoly of, Henry Sy, owner of a nationwide chain of mega-malls.
Only distribution remains unconcentrated. This is in the hands of provincial cooperatives. But they are price-takers.
Their members, the ordinary consumers, shoulder the brunt of the privatization of the energy industry and the
deregulation of power rates. As its price continues to rise, electricity is becoming unaffordable for the poor and
marginalized sectors, such as indigenous peoples.
Five years after the passage of the REA, local governments and indigenous peoples have to put up with the
importunate efforts of corporate representatives and state officials to cajole, bribe, or pressure them into accepting a
plethora of renewable energy projects. As of 30 August 2013, the Department of Energy had accepted a total of 588
applications for such projects, with a combined capacity of 11,900 megawatts. The current system capacity of the
country’s electrical power industry is already 11,449 MW. The current peak demand is only 9,526 MW and is
projected to rise to only 12,394 MW by 2022. Need is clearly not the reason for the projects. Rather, it is the
prospect of profit.
THE CORDILLERA: A SOURCE OF
RENEWABLE ENERGY
The Cordillera region has a population of 1.7 million (2010 Census), the majority of which is comprised by
indigenous peoples belonging to at least eight ethno-linguistic groups, collectively known as Igorot (literally, those
of the mountains). As indigenous peoples, integrated in our ways of life is stewardship and protection of the land and
all the natural resources it holds for the enjoyment of future generations. However, the state and big business have
long considered the Cordillera as a resource base for the development of the mineral, logging, and power industries,
and disregarded the fact that it is our homeland.
Nationwide, the Cordillera region has the highest energy resource potential, estimated at 3,586 MW, 27% of the
country’s potential. The region hosts the headwaters of 13 major river systems, and supplies irrigation to Central
Luzon, the Ilocos region, and parts of the Cagayan region. It is the watershed cradle of Northern Luzon, playing a
key role in maintaining ecological balance in northern Philippines. Its rivers and creeks have been attracting
corporate investments in hydropower since the late 1940s. Apart from hydroelectricity, renewable energy potentials
include geothermal, wind, and solar power.
In the government’s Regional Development Plan (2011-2016), harnessing the energy potentials of the Cordillera is
among the key priorities. As of 30 August 2013, the Department of Energy had already awarded one wind, seven
geothermal, and 43 hydro power projects to various corporations, and was processing 60 more hydropower
applications. The Department’s list of projects does not include one large multi-purpose dam that another
government agency, the National Irrigation Administration, intends to build in the town of Natonin, Mountain
Province. It also does not yet reflect ongoing studies for the feasibility of building two more large dams in the
neighboring town of Barlig. These would raise the total number of hydropower projects to 106. The National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is still trying to secure the free and prior informed consent (FPIC) of the
affected communities to most of the aforesaid projects.
At present, the 17 operational hydroelectric facilities in the Cordillera region have an installed capacity of more than
660 MW and a dependable capacity of more than 318 MW. Additional hydropower potential is placed at 1,259 MW,
and geothermal resource potential at 510 MW. However, the annual energy peak demand in the region is only 107.5
MW. The region’s energy production goes straight to the Luzon power grid. And not all the villages of the region’s
indigenous peoples are supplied with electricity from this grid. In fact, it took almost 50 years before electricity from
the grid was finally channeled to households living in the vicinity of the first hydropower dams built in the
Cordillera, on the Agno river, at Ambuklao in Bokod and Binga in Itogon, Benguet province. As of 2007, only
89.45% of Cordillera households enjoyed electricity.
Chevron, the notorious US-owned firm, is among the numerous corporations that aim to operate renewable energy
projects in the region. Its geothermal energy project in the province of Kalinga, targeted for full operation by 2018,
covers 25,682 hectares. Its two other geothermal prospects cover approximately 76,000 hectares in Benguet, Ifugao,
and the Mountain Province. Another major firm is Aboitiz, which has partnered with SN Power of Norway, and now
owns the Ambuklao and Binga dams, plus a dozen smaller hydro facilities. Aboitiz has 33 hydropower projects.
Other companies with renewable energy projects in the region include the Ayala subsidiary Quadriver, Henry Sy’s
APC Group of Companies, Sta. Clara, Pan-Pacific, AsiaPac, Southeast Asia Renewable Energy, Basic Energy, AVG
Power Systems, Clean Rock, PhilCarbon, and Chevron’s longtime partner, the Philippine National Oil Company
Renewables Corporation.
POWER TO CORDILLERA INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES
Foreign and local corporations are raking in profit from energy projects as guaranteed by the EPIRA and the REA.
Indigenous peoples do not benefit from these capitalist projects. Instead, we have to cope with rising electricity
prices, adding insult to the injuries our communities have suffered as a result of the impact of the energy projects on
our environment, livelihood, and ways of life. There are still communities in the Cordillera that need electricity, but
the existing hydropower facilities that generate massive amounts of energy are not providing this.
The state’s promotion of corporate renewable energy projects in the Cordillera has entailed numerous violations of
our rights as indigenous peoples to ancestral domain and self-determination. Mega-dams built despite our protests
have already displaced hundreds of families of indigenous peoples. Putting up 106 more hydropower facilities will
seriously disrupt our livelihood, which includes irrigated farming and freshwater fishing. Drilling for geothermal
energy in our heavily mineralized region will aggravate environmental pollution and health problems, which we are
already experiencing from large mining operations.
As indigenous peoples, we are guaranteed the right to free and prior informed consent regarding all projects that
might impact on our ancestral domains. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples is mandated to facilitate
the FPIC process while ensuring that this is conducted properly. However, in the processing of renewable energy
projects, the NCIP has colluded with the Department of Energy and the corporations to maneuver around our
communities’ opposition and railroad the building of so-called consensus in favor of the projects. In relation to
Chevron’s Kalinga project, the NCIP fabricated a bogus resolution of FPIC in the name of the Dananao tribe. In
relation to one large dam project, also in Kalinga, the NCIP would have let one corporation get away with
fabricating the existence of a new, distinct tribe, were it not for the vigilance of a local peasant organization. And in
relation to a set of small hydro projects in Ifugao, it allowed public officials to use the military’s presence in the area
to intimidate the local citizens into voting for “FPIC”. Also, the NCIP has adopted guidelines which allow
corporations to apply for FPIC again and again when communities persistently refuse their projects. The NCIP has
thus disrespected our peoples and violated our right to self-determination.
Most of our communities who are affected by renewable energy projects oppose them because these bear ethnocidal
impacts or threaten our survival as persons and as peoples:

Diversion of water, economic dislocation, and even displacement from our ancestral lands;

Water, air, and land pollution, which results in toxic contamination of remaining potable water and irrigation
sources, soil degradation and diminishing crop yields, the siltation and biological death of rivers, and the loss of
biodiversity;

The loss of the community’s control over its own territory, and the restriction of community access to the
resources here;

Heightened human rights violations as the state deploys its armed forces to secure the renewable energy
projects.
We do not need state-fostered, capitalist-driven renewable energy projects. We have proven that communitymanaged renewable energy projects are able to provide for our electricity needs. For nearly three decades now,
many of our communities have gotten their electricity from micro-hydro plants, pico-hydro turbines, and photovoltaic plates which they themselves have installed and managed. Besides supplying them with electricity, the
micro-hydros also provide mechanical energy for rice and corn mills.
OUR ALTERNATIVE
For energy development – indeed, for economic development as a whole – to become viable and sustainable in our
indigenous peoples’ territories, it must be underpinned by the recognition and respect of our collective rights to
ancestral domain, to self-determination, and to basic survival as human beings. Rather than be geared towards
satisfying capitalist greed, it should address our practical needs. Rather than consist of a chaos of projects, it should
be comprised of a rationally and carefully outlined program in resource utilization and management. It should be a
program in responsible stewardship of nature, undertaken for the welfare and interest not only of the present but also
of future generations. Consistent with our peoples’ traditions in cooperativism, and in resource and benefit sharing,
the ownership as well as operation of facilities should be socialized rather than privatized, and gains should be
distributed equitably among the members of society.
We advocate:

At the local level, community-owned and managed, clean and environment-friendly renewable energy systems
that directly address the basic needs of rural citizenry in food production and processing, cooking, lighting,
communications, and village industry. An example are the already operational micro-hydropower systems
designed, installed, and managed by our community organizations;

At the national level, a socialized, integrated power generation, transmission, and distribution system developed
to meet the needs of urban citizenry, public service institutions, and vibrant yet regulated and responsible
industrial and trade sectors.
Our Present Demands
We, indigenous peoples of the Cordillera, collectively demand the full recognition of our right to ancestral domain
and self-determination. Uphold the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and other
international agreements and declarations that recognize and guarantee indigenous peoples’ rights and basic human
rights!
We demand that the Philippine government, especially the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples and the
Department of Energy, ensure the following, and that private corporations do similarly:

Respect indigenous peoples’ right to self-determined and sustainable development.

Respect and abide by the principles of genuinely free, prior, informed consent.

Stop the militarization of the Cordillera indigenous peoples’ territories where projects in energy and other
extractive industries are located.

Cancel energy projects and contracts with fraudulent FPIC.

Indemnify the victims of past energy projects that were forced on communities and impacted adversely on
them. Provide just compensation, decent relocation, and appropriate livelihood rehabilitation to any indigenous
community that might decide in favor of an energy project.

Scrap the EPIRA, the REA, and other laws that have privatized, commodified, and deregulated the power
industry, which is supposed to be a public concern, and that have fostered irresponsible, profit-oriented resource
exploitation.

Ensure affordable energy for the people.
In addition:

Corporations and the Philippine government itself must be held accountable for the violations of human rights
and indigenous peoples’ rights in advancing energy projects.
How You Can Help
We urge indigenous peoples’ organizations, people’s movements, indigenous rights and human rights advocates,
other individuals, and institutions to support the Cordillera peoples’ struggle against destructive capitalist renewable
energy projects. We enjoin you to support our activities:

Community organizing and education;

Campaigns, mobilization, and direct actions on renewable energy projects;

Public awareness-raising and information-dissemniation;

Lobby and advocacy at the local, national, and international levels;

Exposing and resisting Chevron and other energy monopolies who have had an apalling environmental and
social record;

Supporting the international people’s struggle against Chevron’s global operations.
We encourage you to write letters of concern to:

The Philippine government, particularly its Department of Energy, and its National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples;

International bodies promoting indigenous peoples’ rights, human rights, and environmental protection;

Chevron Corporation.
Source: https://intercontinentalcry.org/support-cordillera-indigenous-peoples-resistance-destructiverenewable-energy-projects/
IPRA LAW Reference Websites:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385_puno.htm
HR/GENEVA/TSIP/SEM/2003/BP.4
EXPERT SEMINAR ON TREATIES, AGREEMENTS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
BETWEEN STATES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Geneva
15-17 December 2003
Organized by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Implementation of the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act (IPRA) in the Philippines: Challenges and Opportunities
Background paper prepared by
Ms. Ruth Sidchogan-Batani
Research coordinator, Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples' International
Centre for Policy Research and Education)
--------
The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the OHCHR.
Introduction
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) in the Philippines, enacted in November 1997, is
touted to be a landmark legislation in the protection of the rights of the indigenous peoples. It is the first
comprehensive law to recognize the rights of the indigenous peoples of the Philippines. IPRA recognizes
the indigenous peoples’ right to their ancestral lands and domain, and specifically sets forth the
indigenous concept of ownership. The law recognizes that indigenous peoples’ ancestral domain is
community property that belongs to all generations. IPRA likewise recognizes the customs of indigenous
peoples and their right to self-governance and empowerment. But there had been many criticisms of
IPRA especially in terms of its conflict with other existing laws like the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 as
well as with customary laws. Despite the many imperfections of IPRA, however, many still believe that
IPRA can be a building block towards the sustained struggle for indigenous peoples rights.
The aim of this paper is to present an assessment of the implementation of the IPRA in the
country and discusses at length, the experiences and the effects of IPRA in Cordillera region.
The Philippine Indigenous Peoples
The Philippines, composed of 7,107 islands and islets spanning 1854 kilometers from north to
south, stretches from China to the north and Indonesian archipelago to the south. It is an archipelago
endowed with rich natural resources, a rich history, culture and many ethnolingustic groups. The
Philippines is the only country in Asia that has officially used the term ‘indigenous peoples.’ (Rovillos,
2001). Of the more than 75 million Filipinos, about 12 to 15 million are indigenous peoples or about 1722% of the total population in 1995 (TABAK, 1990).
Indigenous peoples’ communities can be found in the interiors of Luzon, Mindanao and some islands
of Visayas. They either withdrew to the hinterlands in the face of colonization or they stood their ground
successfully and have 1maintained a close link to their ancestral past. They comprise a diverse collection
of more than 40 ethnolinguistic groups, each with a distinct language and culture.
The indigenous peoples in the Philippines continued to live in their relatively isolated, self-sufficient
communities, at the time when most lowland communities had already been integrated into a single
colony under Spain in the 1700’s and1800’s. They were able to preserve the culture and traditions of
their “ethnos” or “tribe” as reflected in their communal views on land, their cooperative work
exchanges, their communal rituals, their songs, dances and folklore. Instead of hierarchical
governments, each of these communities had its own council of elders who customarily settled clan or
tribal wars to restore peace and unity.
But with the long years of colonial rule in the Philippines, from the 1700s to the early 1900s and the
influx of migrants into indigenous peoples territories, many influences have been introduced that
gradually changed the indigenous way of life. Indigenous communities at present are still characterized
by these phenomena but are definitely not in their pure and natural state anymore, showing varying
degrees of influence from outside culture.
Major Groups of Indigenous Peoples
According to Tunay na Alyansa ng Bayan Alay sa Katutubo TABAK (1990), there are more than 40
ethnic groups that make up the Philippine indigenous population and these can be classified into six
groupings excluding the Islamic groups. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), on the
other hand, identifies 95 distinct tribes of indigenous peoples in 14 regions of the country and includes
the Islamic groups. Among the major groups are the Mindanao Lumad , a generic term embracing all
non-Muslim hilltribes of Mindanao. Lumad is a Visayan term word that means “born and grown in the
place”. Next are the Cordillera Peoples, the indigenous population of the Cordillera mountain range
which covers six provinces in the middle of Northern Luzon – Abra, Apayao, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and
Mountain Province. They are collectively called Igorots, meaning “mountain people” although some
groups like the Kalingas and Ifugaos refuse to be called Igorots except by their own tribes. There are
eight ethnolinguistic groups in the Cordillera , namely, Bontoc, Ibaloi, Ifugao, Isneg, Kalinga, Kankanaey,
Tingguian and Yapayao numbering a total of 988,000. (CPA, 1991). The Caraballo Tribes : These are the
five ethnolinguistic groups—Ibanag, Ilongot, Gaddang, Ikalahan and Isinai, who together with the the
Agta peoples inhabit the Caraballo mountain range in Eastern Central Luzon. This range connects the
provinces of Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Nueva Ecija. The Caraballo tribes number roughly 500,000.
Another major group are the Agta and Aeta/Negrito - short, dark-skinned and kinky-haired peoples who
are considered the earliest inhabitants of the Philippines. Aside from having been perpetually pushed
into the hinterlands of Central Luzon. The Mangyan of Mindoro, a generic name for the six
ethnolinguistic groups spread over the mountains and foothills of Mindoro, an island southwest of
Luzon, namely, Batangan, Iraya, Hanunoo, Alangan, Ratagnon, Buhid and Tadyawan. They are described
as the first inhabitants of the island, and until today, they are one of the few groups that still practice a
pre-Spanish form of writing. The Palawan hilltribes are the non-Muslim tribal people of Palawan island
located further west of Mindoro. This group is composed of four ethnic groups –Tagbanua, Batak,
Kalamianes,Cuyonin and Ken-uy. Finally, the Muslim Groups in Mindanao composed of 14 groups,
namely, Maranao, Maguindanao, Tausug, Samal, Yakan, Sangil, Palawani, Badjao, Kalibugan, JamaMapun, Ipanun, Kalagan, Molbog and Muslim.
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
It was in 1997 that the then President Fidel V. Ramos signed into law Republic Act (RA) 8371 or
the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). The legal bases for the enactment of the IPRA are found in the
Philippine constitution as well as in international treaties and conventions.
The IPRA echoes the “progressive” provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as can be
found in Section 2 of IPRA. As mandated by the 1987 Consitution, Sec. 22, Article II provides for the
recognition and promotion of the rights of IPs; Section 4, Article X11 provides for the protection of the
rights of IPs to their ancestral domains to ensure their economic, social and cultural well being and the
recognition of the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining
the ownership and extent of ancestral domains. Section 6, Article X111 which recognizes rights to
ancestral lands and section 17 Article X1V which recognizes, protects and respects the right to preserve
and develop their culture , traditions and institutions are put in place in section II of the IPRA.
IPRA likewise upholds the UN Draft Declaration on the IPs which highlights on the Collective
Rights of IPs as well as the ILO Convention No. 169 or the Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples in Independent Countries that legitimizes the demand of the IPs for collective rights.
IPRA: A Landmark Legislation
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) or Republic Act 8371 is said to be a landmark law as it
is considered to be the most comprehensive law that includes not only the rights of Indigenous Peoples
over their ancestral domain but to their rights to social justice and human rights, self governance and
empowerment as well as cultural integrity. Various groups believe that even with the imperfections of
IPRA, it is the panacea to the chronic and intensifying land problems among indigenous peoples in the
country.
The Cordillera Peoples Alliance , a regional alliance of people’s organizations in the Cordillera,
Northern Philippines, holds a different view – that indigenous law cannot be reconciled with national
land law (state law) as it both are coming from different contexts that include the history and views on
land issue and land rights.
The IPRA Implementation: 1997-2003
After almost seven (7) years of IPRA implementation, assessment of it reveal a not-so
satisfactory performance. To date, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the
government agency in charge of the formulation and implementation of the law, has only approved and
released 11 certificate of ancestral domain title (CADT) out of the 181 CADT applications, 17 certificates
of ancestral land titles (CALT) out of 347 CALT applications.
The turtle-pace processing and approval of CADT and CALT applications has been a major
setback of the NCIP. In fact, the first issuance of CADT was in Bakun, a municipality of northern Benguet
in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) in Northern Luzon, and only in July 2002, after almost five
years of IPRA implementation. This led certain groups to label IPRA as no different from previous land
instruments as it remains incomprehensible and like other paper titles, remains cumbersome and
bureaucratic. This is one reason why IPs who opted to work within the state sponsored land
instruments, either failed to have their paper titles or have never perfected the titling requirements.
Others say that the line of authority and coordination is unclear and remains hierarchical. This can be
alienating to indigenous peoples whose cultures are based on simple democratic structures. What could
partly explain for this is the fact that the NCIP has inherited a ‘huge but largely inefficient’ bureaucracy
from the defunct government agencies who were responsible for indigenous in the pre-IPRA period
(Leonen, cited in Rovillos et. al., 2002). The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
and later the Department of Agrarian Reform, were the first instruments used by the state to
“recognize” indigenous peoples rights to their lands. Through the DENR, Administrative Order No. 2
(DAO 2) Series of 1993, which provides the issuance of Certificates of Ancestral Land Claims (CALCs) and
Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADCs) as a form of land tenure. The DAR provides Certificate
of Land Ownership Award (CLOA). DAO-2 seeks to identify and delineate ancestral lands and ancestral
domains, to qualify individuals, families, clans or entire indigenous communities for CADC or CALC, and
to certify that those qualified applicants have the right to occupy and utilize the land. Apparently, even
with the creation of the NCIP, each agency has its own policy on the same issue, and as a result,
problems of overlapping and duplication even ‘tension’ between and among the agencies, are seriously
eroding coordination functions. This and other administrative as well as political squabbles rocks the
implementation. At another level, the IPRA has potential provisions that NCIP still has to establish and
explore how it will work. Section 50 of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) defines that need
for the setting up of mechanisms that institutionalizes the IP participation in the NCIP through a
‘consultative body.’ This is one structure which the people can directly relate with and a potential
channel for people’s participation, yet in the Cordillera region, this body is still to be set up before the
year ends (Interview with CAR-Regional Director, December 2003). Theoretically, the body would
deliberate on important issues and concerns; it is also a policy making body as well as a body that takes
care of monitoring IPRA implementation. This is very important in the context where commercial
interests are continuously threatening indigenous territories even where IPRA is put in place. Yet its
realization and performance remains to be seen.
In 1998, the NCIP came out with Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of IPRA. One of the
most important and controversial provisions of the IRR is Section 5 (6), Rule II which states that “the
ICCs/IPs shall have the right to suspend or stop any project or activity that is shown to have violated the
process of securing free and prior informed consent, or have violated the terms and conditions of such
previously granted consent.”
The mining industry immediately expressed their apprehension over this rule. They questioned
the IRR’s bias for indigenous peoples and their priority claims over the country’s minerals and other
natural resources to the detriment of other sectors like the mining and power industries (Manila Times,
1998; Business World, 1998 as cited in Rovillos, 2001). Five months after, the NCIP issued Administrative
Order No. 3 in October 1998. The order exempts all leases, licenses, contracts and other forms of
concession within ancestral domains existing prior to the effectivity of the NCIP Administrative Order
No. 1 (IPRA’s IRR), from the coverage of IPRA’s provisions on free and prior informed consent. The AO
also declares that all written agreements with and/or resolutions by indigenous peoples communities
prior to the effectivity of NCIP AO 1 shall be considered as “free and prior informed consent.” The NCIP
may also issue a temporary clearance to individuals and companies pending resolution of conflicts
within ancestral domain areas.
This raised concerns and protests among indigenous peoples and advocates declaring that the
NCIP AO 3 as being “onerous” and a “sell-out” to the interests of the mining industry. (Rovillos, 2001). In
addition, the short duration (30 + 7 days) allowed to secure the FPIC is insufficient; that allowing
“interim clearances” and any form of written agreements to pass off as consent is fraudulent, and that
the idea of dolling out “gifts” in the form of showcase development projects before and during the
conduct of FPIC is ‘divisive and deceptive.’ (Ballesteros cited in Rovillos, 2001). An attempt to ‘correct’
this came in the form of another Administrative Order – the AO No. 3 released on February 19, 2002.
The law “expressly repeals NCIP AO No. 3 Series of 1998.” Upon closer look, however, the major
provisions such as the leases, and other agreements entered into prior to the effectivity of NCIP AO No.
1 which the indigenous peoples opposed from the very beginning , was not mentioned at all
( NCIP AO No. 3, Series of 2002).
The Impact of IPRA : the Case of Bakun in Benguet
Despite the adoption of the language of UN the Draft Declaration on the Rights of IPs, the IPRA
implementation has mixed effects on the indigenous communities. This part of the paper will present
the experiences of IPRA implementation in Bakun municipality in the province of Benguet in the
Cordillera Administrative region.
Bakun in the province of Benguet, north of the Philippines, got the first land title in July 2002
when it received from the National Commission on IPs their Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT)
covering an area of 29,400 hectares. Earlier, Bakun was issued its Ancestral Domain Claim from DENR on
March 13, 1998 through the Department Administrative Order # 2. This order had the goals of
delineating ancestral lands from ancestral domain in indigenous communities.
Bakun is home to the Kankana-ey ethnolinguistic group who has been known to have their own
bantay-saguday or indigenous ancestral domain management systems. They are still governed by their
own indigenous socio-political institution that sustained their lives and integrity through generations
independent of the state’s national land laws. Being the first municipality in the entire county to receive
its own domain title, Bakun has been cited as a case of “good practice.” The ILO-INDISCO support to the
community based Bakun Indigenous Tribal Organization (BITO) which led the drawing up of the plans for
sustainable development, in many ways, was instrumental in facilitating the processing of the CADT
approval.
The story of Bakun is one case where the people opted to work within the IPRA, a statesponsored framework of development. In a way, it has gotten the much needed support and resources
to fastrack the awarding of its domain title in time for the second state-of-the nation address of
President Macapagal-Arroyo in 2002. Indeed, the processing of the title was exceptionally fast. This kind
of support and political atmosphere is of course not available to other indigenous communities listed to
work for their ancestral domain titles. In Happy Hallow, Baguio city, for instance even if it was listed as
one of the pilot areas the certificates of ancestral domain claim (CADC) back in 1990, under the then
DENR, up to the present, has not yet receive its title this time under the NCIP. The Happy Hallow
community members laments the fact that despite the preparations and work and even boundary
compromises they have invested to fulfill all the tedious and voluminous requirements to titling, it
remains to be seen whether they are to receive theirs. In the first place, the community also need to
grapple with technical and legal issues raised against their claims.
On the eve of Bakun’s acceptance of it’s CADT, tension has been felt over the use and protection
of land resources. The community were caught flat footed when it had to confront the operations of the
Bakun Hydro Electric Development Corporation an Aboitiz-owned Luzon Hydro Corporation. The free
prior informed consent (FPIC) as contained in Section 3, Part 111 of the IPRA law, has been invoked –
ironically also invoked by the company. As one Bakun folk would laments, ‘we wanted to have the
CADT…an assurance of land security… a shield from big companies…” Previous experiences like the story
of the planned expansion of mining explorations to Bakun by Lepanto Mining company was retold. The
people are now confused as to what and how much IPRA can offer in terms of securing their lands and
resources. This issue was documented a year ago by Malanes (2002) and apparently remains a lingering
problem up to the present. In a case study conducted by Malanes, it was documented that the
‘challenge’ to the Bago community in Bakun is the assertion of their rights under IPRA especially the
provisions on “free prior and informed consent” - that even with IPRA “largescale development projects
are still being negotiated only within concerned government agencies without legitimate community
participation.” (Malanes, 2002). Upon closer look, a bigger problem is in the offing found in a conflicting
law – the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 that gives license to mining firms to continue to engage in
mineral prospecting and continue to push the implementation of their mining plans even within
ancestral domains.
Indigenous peoples experiences in other communities also show that there are negative effects
of IPRA. After almost seven years pf IPRA implementation, conflict stories abound. In the Cordillera
region alone, there has been an increase in boundary disputes. This can be attributed to long standing
conflicts over resources like water for irrigation and territorial delineation. In the province of Abra,
members of a clan who belong to the Masadiit tribe are in conflict with another clan of the same tribe
with regards to the delineation of their ancestral domains. As IPRA stipulates ‘self delineation’ and
customary laws to resolve conflicts, the factions are “recreating and re-telling their respective version of
their customary laws”(Rovillos et al, 2001). Conflicts of the same nature has also been observed by the
Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resources Management (CHARM) a special project under the
Department of Agriculture that facilitates the Cordillera land titling processes through its land tenure
component -- in the municipalities of Atok, Buguias and Kibungan in the province of Benguet. It was
reported that the conflict resolution in Buguias and Mankayan, for instance is at a standstill because of
boundary disputes, as well as certain opposition from the local government units in relation to the
powers and functions given to the council of elders. The council of elders is considered in the IRR as a
major traditional institution that is suppose to have a major stake in the ancestral domain sustainable
development protection plan (ADSDPP) implementation. There is also confusion on the assertion of the
bounds of indigenous communal and individual rights. This is a result of state imposed political divisions
and subdivisions in the past. A top official in the province commented that the Buguias-Mankayan case
should be treated as one domain since they already have a concept of ‘space’ that are communal,
individual lands prior to the superimposition of political boundaries. These boundary disputes delay the
issuance of the CADTs. In an attempt to address these conflicts, concerned groups came up with
resolutions forwarded to appropriate bodies in the government (Regional Development Com. Res. #
CAR-049, s 2003). To date, the conflict in the Masadiit domain of the province of Abra remains
unresolved (Policy Dialogue, October 2003).
In other parts of Mt. Province, the setting up of ancestral boundary markers has reportedly
remained stalled as the people are against the superimposition of these land laws.
The conflicts in the IPRA implementation felt most at the community level has not escaped the
observation of the UN Special Rapporteur (SR) on the situation of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms of IPs in his mission to the country last December 2002, who said that while the Philippines is
the only country in Asia that has a law on IPs, it’s “inadequate implementation is still an unfulfilled
promise,” particularly because it may enter into conflict with other laws such as the Mining Act of 1995
and because IPRA itself contains provisions that do not favor the IPs entirely. Even Atty. Marvic Leonen,
a legal luminary on indigenous peoples’ rights who used to hold the view that the IPRA as a legal
instrument can be used as a stepping stone towards a “more progressive level of political discourse”
now said that IPRA is a “heavily compromised law.”(Rovillos et al, 2002). Reasons he provided are that
the IPRA does not offer any fundamental solution to the conflict between customary and state law and
that IPRA is an ‘“analgesic…directs attention away from the significant issues confronting indigenous
peoples.”(Rovillos et al, 20020). These agree well with the earlier fear of the Cordillera Peoples Alliancethat IPRA will bring more harm than solution to the chronic land problems in IP territories.
CONCLUSION
The introduction of legal laws and policies from the colonial period to the present time, saw the
superimposition of the Western system of land ownership to Indigenous Peoples. Time and again, the
state has ignored the customary land laws developed by the indigenous populations that has sustained
them for centuries. Today, it can not be denied that it is because of these sustainable resource
management practices that the last remaining biodiverse forest resources are in IP territories. History
has proven that the state’s attempt to enforce its own legal system in the guise of ‘development’ has
displaced the IPs – the Cellophil Resource Corporation, the Chico dam, the Ambuklao and Binga dam
experiences are illustrative. To many IPs who have seen and experienced such development policies of
the state, has somehow learned to work within this state-sponsored legal framework – and it has been
successful to a certain extent. For indeed, the IPRA has worked for some IPs and non-IPs – especially
those who are in power and who see advantage from the process; to many IPs it has not been working
in their favor. In the first place, these laws has always been biased against indigenous concepts of
ownership. Perhaps taking a step backward to once again look at these state sponsored laws, to be able
to discern what to reform in these legal texts is but proper. The IPs has done more than enough to
adjust or even to appropriate themselves with these laws, now it is time to do the other way around – to
reform the legal texts.
REFERENCES:
Abelardo, Cerilo Rico S. Ancestral Domain Claims: Issues, Responses and Recommendations. Unpublished Thesis.
Ateneo de Manila University, College of Law, 1983.
Aranal-Sereno, Maria Lourdes and Roan Libarios. “The Interface Between National Land Law and Kalinga Land
Law,” Philippine Law Journal, Vol. 58 (December 1983), pp. 420-455.
Balao, James M. “The Land Problem of the Cordillera National Minorities,” Paper presented at the First MultiSectoral Land Congress, Baguio City, March 11-14, 1983.
Beyer, Otley H. “Origin Myths Among the Mountain Peoples of the Philippines,” Paper read before the Philippine
Academy, October 22, 1912.
Brett, June Prill. Bontoc Concepts of Property as a Product of their SocioEconomical Systems. Cordillera Consultative
Committee. Dakami Ya Nan Dagami : Paers and Proceedings of the First Cordillera Multi-Sectoral Land Congress.
Baguio City, 1983.
Brett, June Prill. “Stone Walls and Waterfalls : Irrigation and Ritual Regulation in the Central Cordillera”, Northern
Philippines. Hutterer,K.L, Terry Rambo, A. & Lovelace, G.eds. Cultural Values and Human Ecology in Southeast Asia
: Papers on South and Southeast Asian Studies, No. 27. University of Michigan, USA : 1985.
Carino, Joanna. Ancestral Land in the Cordillera in Pantatavalan, Issue No. 2; CPA Baguio City 1998) .
Carino, Joanna K. “National Minorities and Development: A Cordillera Situationer.” Cordillera Consultative
Committee/Cordillera Consultation and Research. October 1984. photocopy
Celo, Purita. Files.( Photocopy).
Center for Development Programs in the Cordillera, Inc. People Initiated Historical Research and Resource
Inventory Project. 1997.
Coalition for Indigenous Peoples Rights and Ancestral Domains. “ Guide to RA 8371 IPRA of 1997.” ILO/BILANCEAsia Department. 1999.
Cruz, Isagani A. Philippine Political Law. Quezon City, Central Law Book Pub. Co., 1995. pp 493-494.
Gaspar, Karl L. The Lumad’s Struggle in the Face of Globalization. Davao City: Alternative Forum for Research in
Mindanao, Inc., 2000.
Guan, J. and Ros-B Guzman, “IPRA:Legalizing Dispossession?” IBON Special Release, No. 42, March 1999, p.5.
Lynch, Owen J. “Withered Roots and Land Grabbers: A Survey Research on Upland Tenure and Displacement.”
Paper presented at the National Conference on Research on the Uplands. Quezon City, April 12, 1983.
Lynch, O.J. Native Title, Private Right and Tribal Law: An Introductory Survey. Reprinted from Philippine Law
Journal, 57, 2nd Quarter. 1982.
Lambrecht, Francisco. “The Kalinga and Ifugaw Concepts of the Universe.”
Nation- building and Development Papers presented at the 15th Anniversary of the Baguio Religious Acculturation
Conference, Baguio City, December 27-30, 1971.
Maceda, Marcelino N. “A Survey of Landed Property Concepts and Practices Among the Marginal Agriculturists of
the Philippines,” Philippine Quarterly of Science and Culture, Vol. 2 Nos. 1-2 (March-June 1975), pp. 5-20.
Malanes, Mauricio. Power from the Mountains, Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices in Ancestral Domain
Management: The Experience of the Kankanaey-Bago People in Bakun, Benguet Province, Philippines. ILO-INDISCO.
2002.
Parpan-Pagusara, Mariflor. The Kalinga Ili: Cultural-Ecological Reflections on Indigenous Theoria and Praxis of ManNature Relationship. Cordillera Consultative Committee. Dakami Ya Nan Dagami : Paers and Proceedings of the
First Cordillera Multi-Sectoral Land Congress. Baguio City, 1983.
Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2 December 1998.
Prill-Brett, June. Preliminary Perspective on Local Territorial Boundaries and Resource Control,” Paper presented
at the PSSC-CSC Roundtable Conference, UP College Baguio Auditorium, April 30, 1988.
Rood , Steven and Athena Lydia Casambre, “State Policy, Indigenous Community Practice, and Sustainability in the
Cordillera, Northern Philippines”, CSC Working Paper No. 23, Cordillera Studies Center, UP College Baguio,
March 1994.
RDC Executive Committee Resolution # CAR-049. Series of 2003. (Photocopy).
Rovillos,R.; Morales, D. “Indigenous Peoples, Ethnic Minorities and Poverty Reduction.” Final Report, ADB RETA
No. 5953. 2001.
Rovillos, Raymundo D. “Aeta Communities and the Conservation of Priority Protected Area System Project.”
Indigenous Perspectives, 3 , 1. Baguio City: Tebtebba Foundation, June 2000.
Rovillos, R.D. & Tauli-Corpuz, V. “Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: Philippine Mission,” Tebtebba
Magazine, 5 Jan-Dec 2002. Baguio City.
Sacla, Wasing D. “Compilation of Land Laws – Effect on Indigenous Ownership/Rights.” Mimeographed. Undated
Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Blueprint of Action: Its Parameters and Strategic Courses of Action. Blueprint
of Action for the Judiciary. June 4, 1999.
Tauli, Anne. “A Historical Background to the Land Problem in the Cordillera. Paper Presented at the First Cordillera
Multi-Sectoral Land Congress, Baguio City, March 11-14, 1983.
Tauli-Corpuz, V. “ State of Affairs in the UN: Indigenous Peoples Lobbying and Advocacy in the International
Arena.” Indigenous Perspectives, 1, 1 Baguio City: Tebtebba Foundation, December 1998.
Tauli-Corpuz, Victoria. “Looking Through the Eyes of Indigenous Peoples.” Indigenous Perspectives 2. Baguio
City: Tebtebba Foundation. 1999.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution (Photocopy).
TABAK, “Tribal Filipinos and Ancestral Domain: Struggle Against Development Aggression”, TABAK, 1990, p.
xvii.
----Source:
http://l.facebook.com/lsr.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ohchr.org%2Fenglish%2Fissues%2Findigenous
%2Fdocs%2Ftreaties%2Fbp4.doc&ext=1414160624&hash=AckrSkCz4POx5RD1uAtsx4geTUwnfXePwU5F
Ugsmm8DCcQ
We will not be wiped out by dams’
The indigenous peoples in the Sierra Madre mountain range and other parts of the country are
mounting opposition to the mega structures that threaten to wipe out not only their ancestral
homes, but also their age-old culture and identity.
By DEE AYROSO
Bulatlat.com
MANILA — The Dumagats and Remontados of Southern Tagalog are shy by nature, living as
subsistence farmers in the southern hinterlands of the Sierra Madre mountain range. But for the
past 35 years, they have come out of their shell to defend their homes and culture against a threat
that comes from no less than the government: the Laiban dam project.
The Dumagats and Remontados are gearing up for another round of fight against the Laiban dam
project, which has been revived for the nth time, now by the Aquino government.
Learning from the experience of other indigenous communities who had been displaced by dam
projects, the Dumagats are anxious that they will be scattered in different places. It’s a worry
shared by other indigenous tribes facing the threat of mega structures that will erase not just their
livelihood and homes, but their age-old culture, their way of life, language and identity.
For that matter, it also affects the national identity, the tribes being the first peoples of the
archipelago.
“We will not retreat, instead, we are keeping the fight alive, so that our great, great grandchildren
– the grandchildren of our grandchildren – will not be displaced from the land of our birth,”
Nanay Norma, one of the elderly Dumagat women said at the “National forum on Laiban dam
and other mega dams on the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples.”
The forum was organized by the Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (Kamp),
Task Force on Indigenous People, and the United Church of Christ of the Philippines-Integrated
Development Program for the Indigenous Peoples of Southern Tagalog (Idpipst). The forum was
held at the Methodist Prayer Garden and Conference site in Taytay, Rizal on Sept. 24 to 26.
The Sierra Madre tribes are joined by leaders of Ibaloi, Mangyan, Tumandok and ManoboPulangyon who came from other indigenous communities in Luzon, Vizayas and Mindanao that
are also being threatened by mega dams.
Laiban
Since the Martial Law era, in 1979, the Laiban dam project has been on and off. It has been
touted as the solution to what government claims as Metro Manila’s looming water crisis. In
1984, two diversion tunnels were constructed but the project was stalled when Marcos was
ousted. Subsequent attempts to continue were thwarted by the opposition of the indigenous
peoples.
n 1986, the Kaisahan ng mga Katutubo sa Sierra Madre (KKSM) was formed to oppose the
project. Later in the 90s, the Makabayang Samahan ng mga Dumagat (Maskada) was organized,
followed by other indigenous peoples’ groups.
During the Aquino administration, the government continued to make an inventory of the
properties in the communities in the project site. Then in 1997, the Ramos administration
privatized water supply distribution, and passed it on to Maynilad and Manila Water companies,
owned by the Lopez and Ayala, respectively. It was the Arroyo administration that aggressively
pushed for the project’s revival, and got $1 billion as technical assistance loan from the Asian
Development Bank. The government, however cancelled these in 2008. In 2009, The San Miguel
Bulk Water Company Inc. submitted its unsolicited proposal. Still, the project failed to push
through.
In 2011, the MWSS started collecting “advanced tariffs” for the dam project from water
consumers.
Now, the Aquino government has again turned on the green light on the project, to be
implemented under its Public-Private Partnership (PPP) program, and renewing the threat to
submerge up to nine villages in Rizal and Quezon provinces.
The site of the Laiban dam project is the Kaliwa River basin in Laiban village, Tanay, Rizal, but
will also harness the Kanan river in Gen. Nakar, Quezon, thus the term “Kaliwa-Kanan dam.”
The project, renamed the New Centennial Water Source (NCWS) Project, will submerge 28,000
hectares of land. Laiban dam will rise 113 meters, while the Kaliwa dam will be 62 meters high.
The NCWS is estimated to supply 2,400 million liters of water a day, and generate 30 megawatts
of hydropower. In June this year, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS)
announced that the project will be implemented in phases, prioritizing the smaller Kaliwa dam,
with the Laiban dam deferred for later years. The Kaliwa dam will cost P18.78 billion ($418
million) and has been approved for bidding. The NCWS project is projected to be completed in
2027, with the Kaliwa dam expected to be functional by 2020.
Lessons
Jill Cariño of the TFIP, who is also an Ibaloi and the vice chair for external affairs of the
Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), said indigenous peoples have learned from experience how
dams “weaken” or even destroy the indigenous culture and cooperation.
“When you lose your land, you lose the base on which to continue your culture,” she said at the
forum.
Cariño said it was the experience of hundreds of indigenous peoples who were displaced by the
Ambuklao and Binga dams, which were constructed in the 1950s in Benguet province in the
Cordillera.
Some 200 families were displaced by the 500 hectare-Ambuklao Dam that was constructed from
1952 to 1956 in Itogon. It was the same case for the tribes displaced by Binga dam, which
engulfed 150 hectares of ancestral territories. There was no relocation, and the affected
population were not compensated.
Cariño said dislocated tribes were forced to integrate into other communities, even migrate to as
far as Palawan.
The indigenous community loses not only their homes and farms, but also access to their
ancestral graves and sacred places of worship. Scattered in different places, they will no longer
able to practice their tribal rituals together, or even speak their language.
Kakay Tolentino of Katribu partylist cited the displacement and loss of farms of the Alta and
Bugkalot tribes and other population in the construction of the Pantabangan dam in Nueva Ecija
in 1969. She said that the whole town was submerged, dislocating the whole population.
Subsequent dam projects in the 80s were fiercely resisted by the Cordilleran tribes, such as the
Chico dam in Kalinga.
Cariño said the government made various attempts to build a dam along Agno river but were all
foiled by strong resistance. The Ramos administration decided to move the dam site in his home
province of Pangasinan, thus what came to be the San Roque dam.
In the struggle against the San Roque dam, the Ibaloi and Kankanaey tribes formed the
Shalupirip Santahnay Indigenous Peoples Movement (SSPIM) in 1996. They researched and
studied the project and started an education and information campaign. The group formed
alliances with other sectors and brought the campaign against the dam to Metro Manila and
abroad.
Among the leaders was Pascual Pocding, an Ibaloi and World War II veteran. Cariño recalled
how Pocding, in a dialogue with the funding agency Japan Bank for International Cooperation
(JBIC), told its officials: “During the war, you tried to kill us. Now, you are again trying to kill
us with this dam and your money.” His words touched the Japanese officials who made reforms
in the project.
Although the campaign failed to stop the dam construction, the government was forced to
provide relocation and compensation to the affected population, following the standards set by
the World Commission on Dams. Cariño said that one of the achievements of the anti-dam
struggle was the strengthened unity among the indigenous peoples, and the broad support
gathered from other sectors.
“The struggle raised the awareness of the people, of how a project, no matter how destructive
and opposed, is forced on the people,” the CPA leader said. She added that the indigenous
peoples also came to understood the deeper ills of society and the need to struggle for their rights
and for genuine freedom and development for the whole country.
Dam nation
In his State of the Nation Address in July, President Aquino mentioned the construction of mega
dams to ensure adequate power and water supply. He gave no mind to the indigenous peoples
who are opposed to having their lives and livelihood sacrificed.
Among those Aquino mentioned were the Jalaur dam in Calinog, Iloilo province, and the Pulangi
5 dam in Bukidnon.
Roy Giganto, leader of the Tumandok, said the first Jalaur dam constructed in the 70s is now
seen as insufficient to provide energy to the island. And so the Jalaur Multipurpose River Project
2 was put into motion, a pet project of Senator Franklin Drilon who hails from Iloilo.
The P 11.2 billion ($249 million) Jalaur dam will submerge 18 villages, affecting 17,000
population including Tumandoks, and will wipe out various species of flora and fauna. The
project had received P450 million ($10 million) from Aquino’s Disbursement Acceleration
Program (Dap), and the remaining will come as a loan from the Korean Export-Import Bank.
An environmental investigation mission conducted by the Agham in 2012 observed “geological
risks” as the dam site is prone to landslides, and is 11 kilometers from the West Panay fault line.
Recently, the National Irrigation Authority gave assurance that the dam is designed to be quite
fortified that “only a terrorist attack” can destroy it. The Jalaur River for the People Movement
countered this in a statement, saying that the designers of the Titanic gave a similar
pronouncement before it sank.
Giganto said that as experienced in the past years, the Jalaur river tends to overflow and cause
flooding in the eight towns along its banks, which are at greater risk with the dam project.
Giganto said the government had been spending on a media campaign and bribing Tumandoks to
get their support.
At present, the construction of the high line canal is ongoing but the Tumandoks are protesting
that the project proceeded without the “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC) from the
indigenous peoples, which is required under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (Ipra).
A writ of kalikasan is pending at the Supreme Court, filed by Panay representative Augusto
Syjuco Jr.
In Bukidnon, Datu Nilo “Matingaw” Cabungkal, secretary general of the Save Pulangi Alliance,
said the local government and proponents of the 300-megawatt Pulangi 5 dam project were the
first to divide the indigenous peoples ranks, to get their required consent.
He recalled what he told pro-dam government officials at a 2012 dialogue: “You agree, because
to you, money is important. But to us tribes, land is more important.”
The Pulangi 5 dam will inundate a total of 44 villages in Bukidnon and North Cotabato.
Eight of the 10 villages that have agreed to the project eventually retracted when they were
informed of its adverse effects.
Datu Matingaw recalled that in 2012, officials of the First Bukidnon Electric Cooperative
(Fibeco), the dam proponent, summoned him, and offered to give him P80,000 cash ($1,782),
and a monthly allowance of P10,000 ($223), if he will stop opposing the project. He responded
that these were just “silver coins” and that he refused to do a Judas Escariot on the anti-dam
movement.
To the Dumagats and Remontados in the forum, Datu Matingaw said: “My fellow indigenous
tribes, don’t be afraid. I, too, was afraid at first, but when my fear ran out, my courage surfaced.
If we’re afraid, we will bring the next generation to damnation. All of us will face death, but it’s
better to do so standing up and defending our land.”
Flood and silt
Amit Gabriel of the Hagibbat-Mindoro (Hanunuo, Alangan, Gubatnon, Iraya, Buhid, Bangon,
and Tadyawan) said that dams only look good on paper but in reality are destructive.
The San Roque dam, which is supposed to have a “multipurpose” function for flood control and
irrigation, caused flooding because of its water releases at the height of typhoons or monsoon
rains: in in 2004, in 2009 during during typhoon Peping, and again in 2012.
Tyrone Beyer of the TFIP added that this was even compounded in 2012 when a tailings dam of
the Philex mining corporation spilled into the Agno river, and eventually reached San Roque
dam.
Cariño said what the government and the dam proponents don’t warn the people about is that a
dam causes siltation, as rocks and sand builds up upstream, at the back of the dam. As a result,
pasture land and farms upstream are affected. She said that for one, Binga dam became
unoperational for two years and had to be dredged of silt.
Noel Alasco of the Advocates of Science and Technology for the People (Agham) said dam
projects are implemented by private businesses and are profit-oriented. In spite of faulty designs
and opposition from indigenous peoples, projects are allowed to push through by corrupt
government officials. The World Commission on Dams requires that the community should give
unanimous approval of the project. Instead, resisting indigenous communities are harassed, their
leaders killed.
Water for all
Katribu’s Kakay Tolentino said there are 35 dams functioning in the country, and 21 of these are
located in indigenous peoples’ ancestral domains. Of these, 15 dams are being used solely for
power-generation; six for power, flood control and irrigation; four for power and irrigation,
seven solely for irrigation, and three for water supply.
“Most of the dams are being used for power. And the biggest consumers of power are the
businesses, the corporations,” Tolentino said.
“We recognize the need to harness energy from water, which is not just for the indigenous
peoples but for all. But water should be owned by the people, utilized by all, not as a means for a
corporation to accumulate profit,” she said. “We are open to development but it should not
violate the right of the indigenous peoples to ancestral lands and for self-determination.”
Tolentino said Aquino’s PPP policy worsens the situation, as government reneges on its
responsibility to develop and utilize natural resources to give service to the public, and instead
gives privates business the right to own these.
Viable options
Instead of building dams, Agham said there are more viable options for government to ensure the
water supply, such as ensuring consumer use efficiency and repairing leakages, which result to
water waste. Government could also “develop the existing water reservoirs, implement an
efficient water distribution system and facilities that do not pose adverse environmental and
socio-economic impacts,” Agham said in an article “Laiban Dam: The answer to water
crisis?” by Ibon Features.
Agham said the government could solve the “water crisis” if it scraps its water privatization
policy, nationalize the water industry and implement a pro-people water agenda. “The
government must focus on designing an effective water servicing and technology like modern
pumping stations, water distribution facilities or wastewater treatment and recycling facilities,”
Agham said.
Fists raised
“I have been living a quiet life and yet the soldiers still came,” said Adeling delos Santos, the
widow of Maskada leader Nicanor delos Santos who was shot dead on December 8, 2001 by
soldiers of the Task Force Panther in Antipolo.
“I have decided to become active again..because if I keep quiet, my ancestors’ land and my
husband’s sacrifice will be for naught. And so I am returning with my fist raised to the struggle
and the fight against Laiban dam,” said Dela Cruz. Her son, 26-year-old Arnel, is now the
secretary general of Maskada.
Arnel said the Dumagats and Remontados are against the Laiban dam but some are afraid of the
soldiers, who brand villagers as sympathizers of the New People’s Army (NPA). “Sa sundalo,
pag me magandang katwiran e me nagtuturo. Pero ang mga katutubo, natuto na sa mga nakikita
nila.”
(Soldiers say that when the people reason out, that means someone is teaching them. But in truth,
the indigenous peoples have learned from what they have seen.)
“Even if all seven villages are deployed with soldiers, we will still persist in fighting the dam.
We do not need the dam, we do not need the military. What we need is education, health service,
projects that will not destroy the environment and culture of the indigenous peoples.”
Lodima Doroteo, 22, a Dumagat student of Harris Memorial College in Taytay, Rizal, recalled
that as a child, she was brought by her parents in rallies against the Laiban dam project in the
90s. Her grandfather, Lope dela Cruz, was among the Dumagat leaders opposing the project.
Doroteo said she realized the importance of having joined the protests against the dam, and is
now joining the fight on her own volition.
“If we did not come together then, the dam would have pushed through and caused destruction,”
she said. “The forest is our life. If you remove the forest, then you remove our life. We will be
wiped out.”
“We don’t want to fall into the ‘kinsi-kinsi’…we cannot survive in a cemented community.
Where will our animals, our goats go to pasture?” said Nanay Norma, referring to promises that
there will be jobs for the indigenous peoples. “Kinsi-kinsi” refers to pay day every 15th of the
month for employees.
A Dumagat barangay official from Canawan, for his part, said: “It has been 30 years of struggle
against Laiban dam, and it seems that this fight will never end. .Still, our action is forward, not
retreat.”
Sierra Madre
AJ Espino of the Protect the Sierra Madre Network and Alliance said there is a need to defend
the Sierra Madre mountain range – its indigenous communities and natural resources – which has
been under attack by government and big corporations pushing for mining, dam projects and
land use conversion. She said the mountain range – which straddles 10 provinces in the regions
of Cagayan Valley, Central Luzon and Southern Tagalog — is home to endangered species such
as the monkey-eating eagle.
She said the Protect Sierra Madre Network and Alliance hopes to unite the indigenous peoples
from the Sierra Madre communities, and mobilize support from other sectors in a campaign,
which will also include the opposition against Laiban dam.
Source : http://bulatlat.com/main/2014/10/01/we-will-not-be-wiped-out-by-dams/
Philippine tribes unite against
destructive mega dams
Posted: September 27, 2014 in
Peasants
“Indigenous peoples’ ancestral domains have been hosts, albeit by force, intimidation, and deceit, to large-scale,
multi-purpose dams. These dams, which the government has peddled to be indispensable for national development,
caused the displacement of indigenous peoples from their territories, and destroyed their homes, sources of
livelihood and sacred sites. Further, due to displacement, indigenous groups, especially those who have migrated and
settled in other areas, experience a worsening socio-economic conditions and erosion of their culture,” TFIP said in
the concept note for the forum.
“Though touted as essential to meet the water and power requirements in urban areas and irrigation water for vast
farms in rural areas, these dams, such as Binga, Ambuklao, San Roque and Magat in Luzon and Pulangi in Mindanao,
have primarily benefited big industries, like mining and plantations. Power and water rates are in an all-time high and
poor farmers cannot keep up with the rising costs of irrigating their farmlands,” the task force said.
Source: http://jeyaye.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/philippine-tribesunite-against-destructive-mega-dams/

BISHOP DEMANDS ALTERNATIVE TO ´MEGA DAM´
PROJECT AT PRAYER RALLY
Philippines

July 05 1996

At a recent prayer rally here, a bishop offered alternatives to the government´s
"mega dam" project, which locals fear will wipe out whole villages in this northern
Philippine province.

"Why not mini-hydros or why not speed up the repair of the Ambuclao and Binga
dams?" asked Bishop Ernesto Salgado of Baguio vicariate at a June 29 rally in Baguio
City, 200 kilometers north of Manila.

Attended by some 10,000 people, the "Land is Life" prayer rally was organized by
the vicariate to protest a proposed dam project in San Roque, Pangasinan, 40
kilometers southeast of Baguio City.

The existing Ambuclao and Binga dams reportedly remain heavily silted even though
the government has hired contractors to clean them.

Bishop Salgado told the rally that peace and the cultural values of the villagers to be
affected by the project are more important than the millions of pesos it is expected
to generate.

"To be genuine, development should not sacrifice the integrity of human
development," Bishop Salgado said.

According to fact-finding missions conducted by the vicariate in November 1995 and
March 1996, the dam site is only 10 kilometers from Itogon town, home to
indigenous Ibaloi people.

Once the dam is filled with silt and water levels rise, the centuries-old rice terraces
built by the indigenous people will be submerged.

Bishop Salgado said that the Ibaloi fear for their "obliteration as a community" whose
cultural and religious lives revolve around their land.

The Ibaloi were deprived of justice by not being sufficiently consulted and not being
included in the project´s planning, the prelate added.

In a pastoral letter released June 23, the vicariate pledged solidarity with the people
of Itogon. The letter expressed the vicariate´s stand "lest by our silence it would be
concluded that we agree to this development project."

The letter, signed by 2 bishops and 31 priests, also said that villagers affected by the
project should play a key role in planning priorities for the region´s development.

Officials of the National Power Corporation said that the 22-billion peso (US$840million) project will irrigate 70,000 hectares of farm land in the provinces of Tarlac
and Pangasinan.

At the prayer rally, bishops and priests from 13 dioceses and vicariates of the
northern Philippines concelebrated the Mass led by Bishop Salgado.
Ibalois demand payment for land
By Rubyloida Bitog
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
ITOGON, Benguet -- Around 500 aggravated Ibalois demanded the National Power Corporation (NPC) and the SN Aboitiz
group of companies to compensate them on their properties now.
These natives are residents of nearby areas of the now known Ambuklao and Binga dams. They submitted a petition to the
Benguet Provincial Board that revealed their various clamors since the 1950s.
The Ibalois said they had been raising the issues to concerned agencies and the companies, but their calls have gone unheard until
now.
Their petition stated that prior to the two dams, these natives resided in the areas. They owned parcels of titled and
tax declared ancestral properties they inherited from their ancestors.
“Before the NPC dam projects, these people were living peacefully, satisfied and contented with what they have,”
said the petition.
It added that the Ibalois then had abundant rice fields, pastureland, poultry and fruit–bearing trees. These people
were then self–sufficient.
However, when the dams were introduced, many of the natives’ properties were damaged and were being used by
the companies without complete payments. Some titled and tax declared lands were also included in the Special Use
Agreement within Protected Areas (Sapa).
“The dams deprived and displaced these people of their land properties. The NPC expropriated the native lands
without proper compensation of land properties. The agreed payment then was P2 per square meter. Only P0.25 was
paid as initial payment to the land owners. This transaction is more than 50 years ago,” read the petition.
It added, “The promise for jobs and resettlement of the people were not even fulfilled. The resettlement site was not
productive, some settlers died of malaria and most returned back home.”
Even today, some portions of land that are not affected by the dams are again included in the Sapa. Orders from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources in 2008 stated titled land properties should not be included under
Sapa.
“There is a nonstop turmoil for the poor Ibalois caused by the National Power Corporation projects. This is passed
from the old generation to the present,” the petition said.
Benguet Board Member Johnny Waguis, who came from the town, received the complaints. He said he will present
the issues to the officials of the province to stir immediate actions.
He said these Ibalois are under various clans, namely: Mariano Fianza, Pedro Lampitao, Pedro Pilo, Hilario Wakat,
Pulido Tello, Rosita Tabirao, Jose Solano, and Solomon Solano. These clans are being represented by their heirs.
The representatives of each clan are also officers and members of the Binga–Ambuclao Ibaloi Tribe Settlers
Association Incorporation. The association is chaired by its president July Lampitao and is continuing the fight to
achieve solutions to their clamors.
INTERNATIONAL EXPERT GROUP MEETING ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
*Reference:
https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web
&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
un.org%2Fesa%2Fsocdev%2Funpfii%2Fdocuments%2Fworkshop_IPPE
_cpp.doc&ei=52RKVPm9N4XOmwXVgoDIAw&usg=AFQjCNE2UOj6QS
HXOC0NUMqUYCEPABNG0w&bvm=bv.77880786,d.dGY
A History of Resistance vs Big Dams:
*Reference:
http://www.cpaphils.org/galleries%20mainhistory%20vs%20big%20dams.html
Ambuklao residents urge developers to address dam-related issues
By ARTHUR L. ALLAD-IW
Northern Dispatch (nordis) Weekly
BOKOD, Benguet – As the developers of Ambuklao dam extend a hand in partnership with the
communities affected by their dam, the folk and local officials here urged the developers to
address the issues which are traceable – and still un-addressed up to now- to the Ambuclao
construction in early 1950s.
The challenge was aired Thursday when the developers, the SN Aboitiz Power (SNAP) Group,
inaugurated its newly rehabilitated Ambuklao Hydro Electric Power Plant which was upgraded
from 75 MW to produce 105 megawatts (MW) for the Luzon grid.
While welcoming the SN Aboitiz as “a partner” in the next 25 to 50 years, Benguet Rep. Ronald
Cosalan pointed out that many promises will do no good if there is no sincerity from the one who
issues the promises.
The company must invest also on the people of Ambuklao as host community, Cosalan said in
his speech at the inauguration program. He clarified, however, that the entry of SNAP is in
relation only to the hydro-power plant, as the rivers, mountains, and everything to do with its
resources are still owned by the local indigenous people.
Cosalan traced the history of the Ambuklao dam which had displaced numerous families and
caused the siltation of the river area, as well as submerged vast rice fields and agricultural lands
of the Ibalois along the Agno River where the Ambuklao dam was constructed.
Cosalan said these issues have also been the basis of the Ibalois along Agno in mounting a
vehement opposition to the San Roque Multi-Purpose dam. That opposition, said Cosalan, has
been successful at raising their issues to the attention of the national government.
In an interview before the program, Bokod Mayor Mauricio Macay said there were issues that
remain unaddressed since the Ambuklao dam was first built.
He listed the issues as, among others, the uncompensated properties submerged by the dam, the
non-relocation of those it displaced, and non-compliance to provisions on employing locals in
the power plant.
The same sentiments were shared by residents displaced by the dam. They have many stories and
sad experiences and they still cry out for justice.
An 80 year old woman shared in an interview how they had been forced to leave in 1950s their
homes in areas where the dam is now located. They managed to bring only what they can salvage
and carry from their homes to establish new residences upstream of the Agno River in Bokod.
She narrated that their rice fields at the time were abundant with indigenous rice like kintoman
and datakan and other agricultural products, which had been enough for their families’
sustenance.
“After years of lobbying, all we got was P75,000 ($1,750) for seven declarations. Others got
nothing as they were not able to declare their lands,” the old woman lamented.
On top of the issues raised by local leaders, the Aboitiz company was urged to prioritize the
employment of the locals sidelined by the building of the dam.
The Ambuklao dam project was planned during the time of Pres. Manuel Roxas in 1948. It was
constructed under Pres. Elpidio Quirino and inaugurated by Pres. Ramon Magsaysay in 1957.
The displacement of the Ibalois, particularly those directly affected in Ambuklao and Tikey
villages called their experiences “historical injustice.”
The dam was operated until it was shut down for technical problems and heavy siltation of its
reservoir in the wake of the July 1990 earthquake, according to the SN Aboitez.
A joint venture recently between SN Power of Norway, a renewable energy company investing
in emerging markets, and Aboitiz Power, a supposed major producer of clean energy in the
Philippines, has invested at least $325-million to rehabilitate Ambuklao dam. It has restarted
operations June this year. SNAP also owns Binga dam along the Agno River which it upgraded
to 120 MW and Magat dam to 360 MW.
Erik Knive, SN Power EVP for Southeast Asia, promised that their investment for Ambuklao
would be “transparent.” He said that they are open, they will listen and they want a better future
“in partnership with the community.” He added that they will deliver on their promises to help
build a long-term relationship. He said their company wants to prove its sincerity through the
partnership.
Emmanuel V. Rubio, SNAP-Benguet President and CEO, said they understand the locals’ ill
feelings from 50 years ago. “When the project was awarded to us, there was resistance from the
community,” he recalled. He said it had not hindered them s they have the long-term view and
vision to work together with the (locals).
But as another Ambuklao-born elderly woman said, “a partnership must be based on the
correction of historical injustices that they suffered. “The SNAP has to address these issues,” she
said.
Source: http://bulatlat.com/main/2011/11/04/ambuklao-residents-urge-developers-to-addressdam-related-issues/#sthash.00FpJJ30.dpuf
IP groups sign MOA with SNAPB to resolve
Ambuklao–Binga claims
by Leia Castro
To resolve the issues being raised by indigenous peoples groups in Ambuklao and Binga, a
memorandum of agreement to create a cultural heritage site for IPs was signed last Tuesday by the
different stakeholders in the hydro electric power generation project.
The MOA contains the commitments of the SN Aboitiz Power-Benguet Inc. (SNAPB), National Power
Corporation (NPC), Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM), Benguet
province, municipalities of Itogon and Bokod, barangays Tinongdan and Ambuklao, and two IP groups:
SNI-Indigenous Peoples Organization Bokod (SNI-IPO) and Tinongdan Indigenous Peoples
Organization (TIPO) as regards the turnover of the operations of the Ambuklao and Binga dams to
SNAPB on June 2008.
The agreement to create the IP Cultural Heritage Site was an offshoot of the letter of councilor Oscar
Camantiles to the World Bank International Finance Committee Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (WB
IFC CAO) on June 19, 2008 citing the concerns of affected IP communities in the hydroelectric project
partly funded by a loan from the WB.
CAO Amar Inamdar then responded to their complaint in July 2008 by conducting interviews and a
capacity building workshop in September 2008. This resulted in the MOA which the IFC will now
monitor for all stakeholders to uphold all their commitments.
The MOA revolves around three identified needs of the affected communities: acknowledgement and
respect for their past contributions, cultural heritage and traditions; socio-economic opportunities to
speed up development and progress; and security with regard to education, training, environment,
and humane settlement.
Among the commitments in the MOA is the establishment of the cultural heritage sites in Marian
Village and Sombrero, residual areas in the NPC which the IPs now have the right to use.
To address the affected communities’ need for opportunity and security, the NPC and PSALM
committed to facilitate the grant of special use of the land for the people’s needs.
SNAPB committed to, among other things, continue dialogue and collaboration with the community
and to allot their corporate social responsibility (CSR) fund for projects as identified by their office and
communicated to their host communities and signatory IP groups.
Provincial and municipal LGU signatories committed to provide funds for projects for the affected
communities. The two barangays Tinongdan and Ambuklao, among other things, committed to
coordinate with their constituents and come up with proposals fit with the CSR program of SNAPB, and
ensure sustain-ability of CSR-funded programs. Meanwhile TIPO and SNI-IPO committed to initiate
regular consultations and come up with project proposals.
Inamdar said his office will continue to monitor compliance with the commitments of the
stakeholders.
The signatories in the MOA are Gov. Nestor Fongwan, Itogon mayor Mario Godio, Bokod mayor
Mauricio Macay, NPC president Froilan Tampinco, Atty. Helena Tolentino representing PSALM president
Jose Ibazeta, SNAPB CEO Emmanuel Rubio, Ambuklao barangay captain Polido Tello, barangay captain
Norberto Pacio representing Barangay Tinongdan and TIPO, and Eugene Alico representing the SNIIPO.
Source :
http://www.baguiomidlandcourier.com.ph/benguet.asp?mode=archi
ves/2009/may/5-24-2009/beng1.txt
Philippines / Ambuklao-Binga Hydroelectric
Power-01/Binga
Complainant
Members of Ibaloi indigenous community and residents of Sitio Binga
Date Filed
June 01, 2008
Case Status
Closed
Complaint
IFC provided finance to the SN Aboitiz company to privatize and rehabilitate two hydroelectric power plants –
Ambuklao-Binga Hydroelectric - owned by the National Power Corporation (NPC). In June 2008, members of the
Ibaloi indigenous community and residents of Sitio Binga, Barangay Tinongdan, Municipality of Itogon, located in the
vicinity of the power plants, lodged a complaint with the CAO. The complainants expressed the following concerns:
1. Displacement of Indigenous Peoples and deprivation of property, land and livelihoods of local communities;
2. Access to jobs and economic opportunities for local community members.
Members of the Ibaloi Indigenous community were displaced over 50 years ago by development of the original
hydropower project. The group still refers to themselves as the ‘displaced peoples’. Privatization of the power facilities
awakened historical tensions within the community and a desire to seek redress for what they believe are wrongs of
the past.
CAO Action
The CAO conducted an assessment and released a preliminary stakeholder report in July 2008. After review and
consultation on the report, the parties reached an agreement for a facilitated dialogue process. The dialogue process
was open and inclusive, involving representatives from the indigenous communities, the Barangay captains,
municipal councilors, the provincial governor, the National Power Corporation and its privatized entity known as
PSALM, as well as the SN Aboitiz company. The process started with a training program to build skills and trust
between the parties for interest-based negotiation and dialogue. This process identified key issues of priority for all
the parties.
Status
The parties signed a final agreement in May 2009. This agreement contained provisions for:
• Access to land and usufruct rights for communities over communal property including village infrastructure, facilities,
and some houses that were made available as a result of the privatization process;
• Local benefits flowing from corporate social responsibility funds and local government revenues as a result of the
project;
• Enhanced livelihood opportunities for local people through the government (NPC) watershed development and
protection programs. In addition, SN Aboitiz has made provision for local employment and benefits through contracts
for goods and services.
The CAO monitored the implementation of the agreement for a 12-month period to the satisfaction of the parties,
before closing the case.
Source:
https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web
&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
caoombudsman.org%2Fcases%2Fcase_detail.aspx%3Fid%3D85&ei=WGZK
VOqAPcO1mwWh3oKwBA&usg=AFQjCNHwmQHjvYKHfYzbL46FlXYLC
H2Rrw&bvm=bv.77880786,d.dGY
Indigenous People and Local Government
Source:
http://www.academia.edu/1889024/Indigenous_Peoples_and_the_L
ocal_Government_Building_Good_Governance_in_the_Philippines