Bantay Kita Intake Form on FPIC
Survey/Interview Guide
The survey tool/interview guide aims to capture the communities’ experience with FPIC. This
tool is a combination of questions answerable by Yes/No/NA, and open ended questions which
seek elaboration on related Yes/No/NA questions.
Target respondents are IP leaders of communities with experience on FPIC.
This tool was developed to further substantiate the results of the documents review as:
a. There is a possibility that not all documents are available and accessible;
b. There is a possibility that the documents may not necessarily capture the actual
experience of the community;
c. This gives importance to community members’ perspective of their experience with
FPIC;
d. Responses will also serve as cross reference for the responses from the documents
review form.
Some items are also found on the documents review, but this will surface the perspective of
community members.
Question 1 is a filter question. If the response is No, then the interview will not be conducted in
the community,
Question 2 will surface respondent’s knowledge about the applicant/company.
Question 3 aims to establish a timeline.
Questions 4-9 aims to surface the respondents’ awareness of the FBI and FPIC teams
(Questions 4 and 6), presence of IP representatives in the FBI (Sec 8) and FPIC (Sec 17) teams
(Questions 5 and 7). It also aims to surface the process of selection of IP representatives to the
FPIC team (Sec 16) (Questions 8 and 9).
Question 10 is a filter question if a 1st Community Assembly has been conducted. In case of a
Yes answer, interviewer asks if the items on the matrix on Question 11 were followed and
checks the appropriate box. (Sec 22)
Question 11 aims to surface if the required steps prior to conduct of 1st Community assembly
were followed (Sec 21).
Question 12 delves into who participated in the 1st Community Assembly.
Question 13 aims to surface if the discussions during the 1st Community Assembly satisfied the
requirements of AO 3 (Section 22) as presented in the matrix provided in the same item.
Question 14 looks as to whether the required items to be presented were actually presented
during the 2nd Community Assembly (Sec 22) as presented in the matrix provided in the same
item.
Questions 15 to 20 looks into the process of decision-making of the community (Sec 22).
Questions 16 and 18 are to ensure that in instances where the processes required by AO 3
were not followed.
Question 21 probes if the decision-making was influenced by people who should not be
influencing the communities’ decision (Sec 22) as decision-making should be done solely by IP
community members.
The same questions lists some possible entities which may have influenced their decisionmaking including non-IPs, police, government officials, mining company, and NCIP.
Please note that non-IPs or migrant IPs who are residents of the AD may only participate if
allowed by the AD owners in accordance with their customs and traditions, provided however,
that the permission be made in writing and signed by the authorized elders/leaders.
Also note that the role of the NCIP representative during this period is limited to documenting
the communities’ decision-making process.
Question 22 requires the listing of the manners by which non-IPs (in instances where they were
not permitted to participate), police, government officials, mining company, and NCIP may have
influenced the decision-making process, if they did.
Question 23 probes if the requirement for the community to make their decision was made in
the 2-month period provided by AO 3, while Question 24 seeks to surface reasons if the
decision was made more than 2 months after the 2nd Community Assembly (Sec 22).
Questions 25-34 are all related to the Memorandum of Agreement.(Sec 31-34)
Question 35 is a matrix which lists down the required items in the MOA (Sec 32). Documentor
will recite these items to the respondent and tick boxes which corresponds to the respondent’s
answers (Yes/No).
Finally, Question 36 lists the prohibited acts by the Applicant (Matrix 1), NCIP officer/employee
(Matrix 2), By the IP Community or Members and/or Elders/Leaders (Matrix 3), and By
NGOs/CSOs/Government Agencies/LGUs and other groups. In each matrix, a fourth column
(Details) should be filled out in all items where the respondent answers Yes.
Note: This survey is intended to be administered to ICCs/IP communities who have experience
with the FPIC process. This questionnaire is a combination of tick boxes (closed) and free verse
(open ended questions) which are designed to capture the FPIC experience of IP communities.
Target respondents are IP leaders/community leaders.
A. Profile
ITEM
RESPONSE
Name of Applicant
Persons to be Involved in the
Implementation
Location of the contract area
(Barangay, City/Municipality,
Province, Region)
Area Covered by the Application
Province, municipality/municipalities,
barangay(s)
Indigenous Cultural
Community/Ancestral Domain to
be Affected by the Application
1. Does your community have an experience with FPIC in relation to large
scale mining?
□ YES
□ NO
2. What company conducted FPIC with your community?
3. When did the company conduct FPIC with your community? (Note : This will establish timeline)
4. Are you aware if a Field Based Investigation Team (FBI) was
constituted?
5. If yes does the FBI Team include two IP leaders?
6. Are you are if an FPIC Team constituted?
7. If yes, does the FPIC team include 2 IP leaders?
8. Were the IP leaders in the FPIC team chosen by the community during
□ YES
□ NO
□ YES
□ NO
□ YES
□ NO
□ YES
□ NO
□ YES
□ NO
the first assembly?
9. If no, who chose the IP representative to the FPIC?
10. Was a 1st General Assembly conducted with the affected community?
□ YES
□ NO
11. Were the following steps followed prior to conduct of the 1st General Assembly? (Please check boxes if
followed.)
□ Formal notice to the Regional Director with his/her approval of the date and place secured;
□ Posting of written notices seven (7) days before the activity in conspicuous places in and around the
concerned ICC/IP Community, i.e. the Community Tribal and/or Barangay Hall/s;
□ Personal service of formal notices to the AD representatives as appearing in the Certificate of
Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) Recognition Book or ADSDPP Book, if available, seven (7) days before
the activity;
□ Service of informal notice to the representative of the proponent/locator;
□ Service of formal notice to the concerned LGU/s Chief Executive/s, concerned NGOs and invited
experts, if any;
□ Service of notice to the Provincial Consultative Body (PCB), if existent
12. Who attended the 1st Community assembly? How many attended?
13. Were the following discussed during the 1st Assembly? (Please check applicable items if yes.)
□ Orientation on IPRA and the FPIC process;
□ Validation of FBI report and the area/s affected;
□ The Census of IPs/Migrant IPs/Non-IPs;
□ Identification and validation of IP Elders and Leaders;
□ Determination of the Decision-making or consensus-building process/es;
□ Consensus on the involvement of NGOs/CSOs;
□ Validation of the members of the FPIC Team representing the community;
□ Presentation of the agreed WFP;
□ Option, selection and invitation of independent expert/s to conduct EIA or give their expert opinions;
□ Arrangements for conflict/dispute resolution mechanisms by the chosen/elected IP Elders/Leaders; and
□ Date and place of Second community assembly.
14. Were the following presented and discussed during the Second Assembly? (Please check appropriate
boxes if yes.)
□ Operation Plan and the scope and extent of the proposal;
□ Cost and benefit of the proposal to the ICC/IP and their ancestral domains;
□ Perceived disadvantages or adverse effects to the community;
□ Measures adopted by the applicant to avoid or mitigate these;
□ Sharing by an expert/s, if engaged or invited, to include presentation of the result of the EIA if
available, expert opinion/s on any aspect, recommendation/s, and identification of affected area/s;
□ Remarks or inputs of other stakeholders, e.g. concerned NGAs, LGUs, NGO, IPO; and
□ Open forum to give the ICCs/IPs the chance to ask questions and to speak out their concerns relative
to the presentations and the project.
15. Before the 2nd Community assembly ended, were the ICCs/IPs left
alone to agree on their decision-making/consensus-building schedules
and when to come out with their decision?
16. If no, what happened/ transpired? Please elaborate.
□ YES
□ NO
17. During this period, were the ICCs/IPs able to consult among themelves,
employing their own traditional consensus-building processes, to further
understand and discern the merits/advantages and
demerits/disadvantages of the proposal in order to intelligently arrive at
a consensus?
□ YES
□ NO
18. If no, what happened/transpired? Please elaborate.
19. Were (duly identified?) NCIP representatives present during these
periods?
□ YES
□ NO
20. What was/were the role/roles performed by the NCIP representatives during this period?
For Documentors: Important Note for Questions 24 and 25
(Non-IPs or migrant IPs who are residents of the AD may only participate if allowed by the AD
owners in accordance with their customs and traditions, provided however, that the permission be
made in writing and signed by the authorized elders/leaders.)
21. Were there instances where the applicant and non-members, migrant
IPs (when not allowed by the AD owners), non-IPs, police, government
officials, mining company, NCIP participated in the consensus-building
activity or interfering in any manner in the decision making process?
22. If yes, what were the actions committed by the following:
Applicant: ( Please list actions done by the applicant)
Non Members of the IP Community:
Migrant IPs (in instances where participation was not allowed by AD holders):
Government Officials:
Mining Company Representatives:
□ YES
□ NO
23. How long after was the community able to make their decision after the 2nd assembly?
□ Less than 10 days;
□ 11-20 days;
□ 21-30 days;
□ More than one month but less than 2 months; and
□ More than 2 months.
24. If decision was arrived at after more than 2 months, why?
25. Were there negotiations between the mining company and the
community for the terms and conditions which shall be included in the
Memorandum of Agreement?
□ YES
□ NO
□ YES
□ NO
□ YES
□ NO
□ YES
□ NO
26. If no, please describe how terms and conditions of MOA were developed.
27. Were the negotiations of the terms and conditions done within the
Ancestral Domain?
28. If no, where were the negotiations conducted? Please list down.
29. Was the signing of the MOA done within the Ancestral Domain?
30. If no, where was the singing of the MOA conducted?
31. Was the Resolution of Consent of the ICC prepared and sigend within
the Ancestral Domain?
32. If no, where was the preparation and signing of the Resolution of Consent conducted? Please list.
33. Was the MOA drafted in dialect best understood by the whole
community?
□ YES
□ NO
34. If no, what language was used in the first draft of the MOA?
35. Does the MOA include the following (check items below if present):
□ Detailed benefit-sharing provisions in accordance with rules and regulations (i.e. not less than 1%
royalty under mining act);
□ Development projects based on the development priorities of the community;
□ Monitoring of the implementation MOA to be implemented by NCIP in partnership with LGUs and
CSOs. This undertaking shall be paid for by the company;
□ Mitigation and resettlement plans for potential risks;
□ Redress mechanisms;
□ Clause on the non-transferability of the MOA;
□ Clause of renegotiation of the economic provisions;
□ Whether the concerned ICCs/IPs shall require another FPIC to be conducted in case of merger,
reorganization, transfer of rights, acquisition by another entity, or joint venture;
□ List of responsibilities of the company and the affected community;
□ Inclusive dates/duration of agreement;
□ Other than what has already been granted by law, the benefits to be derived by the host ICC/IPs
indicating the type of benefits, specific target beneficiaries as to sector and number, the period
covered, and other pertinent information;
□ Detailed use of all funds to be received by the host ICC/IP communities, ensuring that a portion of
such funds shall be allocated for development projects, social services and/or infrastructures in
accordance with their development framework and the Guidelines on the Management of Royalty
Share and Other Benefits promulgated by the Commission En Banc;
□ Transparency mechanism on transfer and disbursement of funds;
□ Detailed measures to protect IP rights and value systems;
□ Detailed measures to conserve/protect any affected portion of the ancestral domain critical for
watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, forest cover, and the like;
□ Responsibilities of the applicant as well as the host IP community;
□ The monitoring and evaluation system of the MOA, to include submission of reports and creation of
monitoring teams;
□ Remedies and/or penalties for non-compliance or violation of the terms and conditions which
includes applicability of customary laws and imposition of sanction/s;
□ Deposit of cash or surety bond mentioned;
□ Provision to render assistance in the event of calamities/disasters in the community;
□ Provision to undertake a new FPIC Process in case of mining activities, after the exploration stage;
□ Provision on the effects of dormant Certification Precondition; and
□ Membership of proponent in organizations requiring ethical standards in a particular line of activity.
36.
Were any of these acts committed by the following?
By the Applicant:
Acts
Employment by the applicant,
including those done by individuals or
groups of persons acting for the
applicant
Use of force, threat, coercion or
intimidation by the applicant, including
those done by individuals or groups of
persons acting for the applicant
Bringing of firearms in the community
during visits by the applicant or groups
of persons acting for the applicant
Yes
No
Details (If yes, please probe for details of
incident/s including actions, date
committed, places where acts were
committed, etc)
(Note: When needed, armed security
shall be obtained from local police
authorities or the AFP as requested by
NCIP)
Bribery or promise of money, privilege,
benefits or rewards other than what is
presented by the applicant during the
consultative community
assemblies/first meeting with
elders/leaders
Clandestine or surreptitious with IP
individuals, some members of the
community concerned or leaders,
without the knowledge council of
elders, leaders, or majority of the
members of the community.
Donations to the community or to any
of its members for the purpose of
influencing the decision of the
ICCs/IPs
Holding of unauthorized meetings
such as but not limited to wining
and/or dining sessions, and the like or
such other activities with the NCIP
official and personnel and/or members
of the affected community, with the
intention of unduly influencing the
result of the FPIC process.
By the NCIP Officer or Employee:
Acts
Acceptance or receipt of money, gifts
or other valuable things from the
applicant intended to unduly influence
the outcome of the FPIC process
Yes
No
Details ((If yes, please probe for details of
incident/s including actions, date
committed, places where acts were
committed, etc)
Consorting with the applicant or with
any person connected to or mediating
for the applicant intended to unduly
influence the outcome of the FPIC
process
Deliberate failure to act appropriately
on complaints coming from the
community concerning prohibited acts
committed by the applicant or its
representatives
Gross negligence or deliberate
omission to perform his duty required
of him by this Guidelines
Acting on, or performing his dutyin
consideration of any offer, promise of
future reward, privilege or benefit from
the applicant
Undue interference in the work of the
FBI Team, FPIC Team, Request for
Reconsideration Team or doing the
latters’ work without being a member
thereof
Use of falsified narration of facts in
reports, attachments or any
supporting documents in the report
submitted with respect to FBI, and all
other documents covered by the FPIC
Holding of unauthorized meetings
such as but not limited to wining and
drinking sessions, and the like, or
such other activities with the applicant
and/or members of the affected
community, with the intention of
unduly influencing the result of the
FPIC process in favor of the applicant
Demanding or receiving from the
applicant, IP community, or support
institutions like NGOs, government
agencies and institutions money, or
any gift, donation, or other valuable
thing outside of the approved work
and financial plan for the conduct of
FBI and FPIC process.
By the IP Community or Members and/or Elders/Leaders:
Acts
Yes
No
Details (If yes, please probe for details of
incident/s including actions, date
committed, places where acts were
committed, etc)
Solicitations and acceptance or
receipt of gifts, money or other
valuable things from the applicant
intended to unduly influence the
outcome of the FPIC process in favor
of the applicant
Consorting with the applicant or with
any person connected to or mediating
for the latter intended to unduly
influence the outcome of the FPIC
process in favor of the applicant
Negotiating, mediating, transacting
business with the applicant without
proper authority from affected ICC/IP
Giving, or promising to give his
consent in consideration of any offer,
promise, future reward, privilege or
benefit from the applicant other than
what has been provided for or
explained by the applicant the Council
of Elders/Leaders and community
members during the consultation
meetings.
By NGOs/CSOs/Government Agencies/LGUs and other groups:
Acts
Undue influence or interference with
the FPIC process or to the
community, either to the members,
leaders, elders, or their
Yes
No
Details (If yes, please probe for details of
incident/s including actions, date
committed, what specific
NGO/CSO/GA/LGU committed the act,
places where acts were committed, etc)
representatives, exerted by
representatives of NGOs, CSOs, Gas,
or LGUs including barangay officials
and their functionaries, and those
made by other entities or groups with
religious affiliations.