When Section 16 of RA 8371 guaranteed that indigenous peoples or indigenous cultural communities shall be given mandatory representation in policy-making bodies and other local legislative councils, close to 4,500 IPs from their respective domains were selected as mandatory representatives in the LGUs in the country.
With over 17 million IPs across 110 ethno-linguistic groups here, the ICCs and IPs mostly found in Mindanao and the Cordillera would be participating in legislative councils and policy-making bodies of LGUs.
The primary task of an Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative or IPMR is to campaign and promote the interests of the sector that he was tasked to represent in the legislative council. They were tasked to articulate programs in consultation with the grassroots in the domain they represent.
But this is not happening as the crucial role of the IPMR in crafting policies for the development of the ancestral domain has been overwhelmed by the regular approval of resolutions and passage of local ordinances by other council members.
The law-making function which was designed to be distinct from the roles of the local lawmakers who were elected regularly has been set aside by the numerous proposals that were included in the legislative agenda for discussion.
Since the proposed resolutions and ordinances included by the other lawmakers in the agenda for deliberations also touched the concerns of the general populace, including the IPs in the domain; some IPMRs can sit back and just listen. No talk, no mistakes.
But there is a good side. The IPMR who was selected by consensus, unless he has plans to run for a position in a local election, can file a controversial measure that a regularly elected politician cannot propose because he is beholden to his voters.
In consultation with IP leaders during conferences held all over the country in 2016, those in attendance identified some common reasons why IPMRs were encountering problems in advancing the legislative agenda of IPs.
The reasons stated by the IPs from different ancestral domains were alike. One was the non-acceptance by the LGU politicians of a selected IPMR. Related to that was the politicized selection of the IPMRs by LGU heads who interfered with the open and fair selection process.
This manifests an LGU’s opposition to IP representation, nothing else. Instead of going against IPMRs, local chief executives should appreciate the IPRA as the law that seeks to correct historical injustices, unless they prefer to be selfish and unconcerned politicians.
Another observation was that resolutions submitted by council elders and leaders endorsing selected IPMRs were not honored, so that the IP representatives to the legislative councils were not recognized by the local bodies.
With non-acceptance, no recognition and no IP representation in the LGU legislative body, a majority of the domain populated by IPs and non-IPs do not care or are unaware that they have rights. The NCIP that was created to protect IP rights should be more dynamic in enforcing the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act or IPRA.
With the IPRA which recognizes the rights of IPs in LGUs in the Philippines, the ICCs are still marginalized and remain to be the poorest in terms of shares in development programs that the government allots.
In terms of allocation and recognition of ancestral lands and ancestral domains, the NCIP has not performed its primary task of distributing certificates of titles. Recently, the Supreme Court clipped the agency’s mandate to issue titles over ancestral lands.
I have not heard of an attempt by any IPMR to fight for the titling of ancestral lands against the acts of an LGU that has been preventing ancestral land claimants from possessing what they truly own. In most cases, the IPMR became the silent partner of LGU executives and co-lawmakers to some extent. They drink from the same glass.
It is a different case in the ancestral domain of La Trinidad. IPMRs duly selected through agreements approved in assemblies of IPs were still opposed by losing nominees. This, even after a petition was denied by the NCIP.
In the selection, nominees talked and agreed to go through a process that was accepted by the selectors assembled. But weeks after a nominee had been selected, a petition by the losing nominee was filed stating that the national guidelines for IPMR selection was violated.
He further sought for the nullification of the result of the IPMR selection and that another selection process has to be undertaken. I reverse the situation and ask the question. In case the petitioner won the selection, will he still question the process that he participated in and say that the national guidelines were not followed? I doubt it.
With the foregoing events, it makes me agree in some percentage that the role of IPMRs has been reduced to pursuing personal interests, overseeing festivals and cultural rituals. The IPMR should not allow his role to be mixed and lost in a boiling vat of “watwat” while the direction of IPs in an ancestral domain is steered by LGU politicians.