Tomelden, Morgan Gabriel Q.

Vista, Francis Nathan S.

Due Process:
CONST. Art. III, Sec. 1

SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Indigenous people:
CONST. Art. II, Sec. 22
SECTION 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities
within the framework of national unity and development.
Agrarian reform:
CONST. Art. II, Sec 21
SECTION 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.

Sources:
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=225826
http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/basic_16/HB00257.pdf

Discussed in House Bill No. 257 of the sixteenth congress, the explanatory note
highlights the issues that surfaced in relation to the Economic Zone created in Aurora. According
to this bill, most economic activities in this area come from agricultural farms and fishery.

Notably, their produce generally consists of rice, corn and root crops, coconut, cash crop, spices
and vegetables. Another distinct feature about Casiguran is that 80% (approx. 49,507 hectares) of
its land is classified as forest land. Under our constitution, our government shall protect its forest
lands and natural resources and must always give priority to our natural environment as its
constituents are entitled to a balanced ecological environment.

SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature.1
In the creation of the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport act, or Republic Act No.
10083, almost 13,00 hectares of Aurora lands will be used for commercial and business
purposes. Encompassed in these lands are around 837 Indigenous Peoples (Agta Dumagats) in
the municipalities of Dinalungan, Casiguran and Dilasag. As stated by the National Commision
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the government agency tasked to form proper relations with
Indigenous Cultural Groups, the Agta Dumagats have already filed for Certificate of Domain
Titles (CADT) for the lands they have occupied since time immemorial. An issuance of such
means the state recognizes their claim over such land, delineating their communal property.
Republic Act 10083 covers an estimated 11,900 hectares of lands under application for a CADT.
Under Rule III, Part 1, Sec. 4 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.
8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act:
Section 4. Recognition of Ancestral Domain and Land Rights.
The rights of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains and lands by
virtue of native title shall be recognized and respected. Native title
to ancestral domains and lands may be formally recognized or
established through the issuance of corresponding Certificate of
1CONST Art. 1 Sec. 16

Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) or Certificate of Ancestral Land

Title (CALT) as provided in the Act. All areas within ancestral
domains, whether delineated or not, are presumed to be
communally owned and, pursuant to the indigenous concept of
ownership, could not be sold, disposed nor destroyed. Areas and
resources in the domains are deemed destroyed if on account of the
activity conducted or applied:
a) The area or resource could no longer serve its normal or
natural functions; or
b) That the area or resource is used in a manner not consistent
with customary laws or agreements of the indigenous peoples
concerned; or
c) That the area or resource is used or gathered in a wasteful or
excessive manner resulting to irreversible loss or irreparable
damage
The implementing rules state that ancestral domains, whether delineated or not, are presumed to
be communally owned and, pursuant to the indigenous concept of ownership, could not be sold,
disposed nor destroyed. The plan of the APECO management to establish a commercial zone
clearly goes against the IRR since this does not benefit the indigenous people concerned nor does
it utilize the natural resources encompassed therein, which the ICCs/IPs have priority over, with
efficiency leading to irreversible loss and irreparable damage. Not only will the Indigenous
People lose their ancestral domain without their consent, which is more than just the physical
land they occupy but a trace of their history, they will also stand to lose access to the natural
resources previously available to them before the creation of the ecozone. It seems that the
sponsors of such bill were indifferent to the rights and needs of the Agta Dumagats as they have
simply taken away a primordial part of Indigenous living without any form of reparation.

In the same House Bill that was previously discussed, it also stressed the fact that Republic Act
No. 10083 did not undergo the right procedure in implementing such project. First of all,

cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) did not take place. 2 The
cancellation of CLOAs is important for these lands that are covered by APECO are owned by an
individual in Aurora and taking these lands would result to the violation of their right. Second,
the concerned local government units were not informed about the implementation of APECO. In
fact, a Resolution dated 29 September 2008 by the Sangguniang Barangay of Tibet seeked for the
help of the Municipal Mayor of Casiguran, Reynaldo Bitong to protect the people of Casiguran
from the project.3 Further, another resolution dated 3 December 2008 by the Sangguniang
Barangay of Esteves demanded for the attention of concerned local government to for the
distribution of the lands that they are entitled to. 4 Also, in 6 November 2008 a resolution was
passed to oppose the creation of ASEZA.5 Several resolutions were passed by the province of
Aurora, however instead of addressing the issues being raised by the concerned people of the
province, the proponent of the law seeked to amend it to cover a wider scope for the project.
Despite the several oppositions presented by the people of Aurora, the project still proceeded and
even became stronger. It is quite evident that the the concerned locals of Aurora were not
consulted before the the implementation of Aurora. This is a clear violation of Article III, Section
1 of the 1987 Constitution which states:

SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
This certain constitutional provision ensures the non violation of the right of the people and due
process would always be respected no matter what.

2 House Bill 257

3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id.