See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250278425

Ancestral Domain Claim: The Case of the Indigenous People in Muslim

Mindanao (ARMM)

Article  in  Asia-Pacific Social Science Review · November 2008

DOI: 10.3860/apssr.v8i1.704

CITATIONS READS
6 4,474

1 author:

Dennis Erasga
De La Salle University
19 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Climate change and food security View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dennis Erasga on 18 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 8:1 (2008), pp. 33-44

Ancestral Domain Claim:

eople in Muslim
The Case of the Indigenous PPeople
Mindanao (ARMM)
Dennis S. Erasga
De La Salle University-Manila
erasgad@dlsu.edu.ph

In its broadest level, this study1 (a) examines the “concept” of ancestral domain and its usage
in the Philippines; (b) it situates the discussion within the context of “claims” made by the
Philippine IPs and (c) from there, assesses the “concerns” and problems attendant to the ancestral
domain claims-making process with special focus on the case of the IPs in the Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Of particular interest are some statistics (period of
2002-2007) on the state of claims issued (Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims-CADCs)
and titles awarded (Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles, CADTs)2 by NCIP nationwide,
zooming in first, on the five Mindanao regions ,then on the ARMM region; as well as on the
policy (i.e. legal) context of ancestral domain claims and their implications for the struggle of
ARMM IPs for their ancestral domain.
This report draws heavily on documents released by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP); as well as on
documents provided the research team by the officials of the Timuay Justice and Governance
(TJG) officials. Additional literature is also referred to, so as to situate the discussions of the
ancestral domain claim issues in the Philippines; literature such as the Philippine Constitution
(1987), the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), the ARMM Organic Act and related
documents.
The analysis and interpretation are complemented by several field interviews (including a whole
day validation session in Cotabato) the research team conducted from December 2007 to January
2008, both in Cotabato and in Manila.

Keywords: Ancestral domain, indigenous people, Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao

ANCESTRAL DOMAIN: HISTORY their meanings that the significance of ancestral

AND EPISTEMOLOGY OF THE CONCEPT
The notion of “ancestral domain” is as
contentious as that of “Indigenous Peoples” (IP).
As a matter of fact these two concepts are
coterminous in their origin and so intertwined in
domain is only made possible by the existence of
the IP and vice versa. In other words, one is
defined by the other; furthermore, both are quite
recent entries to political jargon coined to pursue
socio-political agenda of different interest groups
notably the IPs and even the state.3

© 2008 De La Salle University-Manila, Philippines

34 ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW
However, while the concept of ancestral domain
is the single most powerful tool used by the IPs to
advance their rights to self-determination, both
notions of IP and ancestral domain emerged due
to the encroachment of the development initiatives
launched by the state (Barsh, 1986; Caballero
2004; Fianza, 2004; Herz, 1993). This makes
every aspect of negotiation between the state and
IPs a murky political engagement, more so within
the context of ancestral domain claims which are a
form of political wager. The whole issue of ancestral
domain and the Philippine IPs’ stake to it revolves
around this central thesis.
Who are the Indigenous Peoples?
According to Anaya (1996, as cited in Mauro
and Hardison, 2000), the current definition of
indigenous peoples most accepted in the
international framework includes parts or all of the
following elements:
self-identification as indigenous; descent
from the occupants of a territory prior to an
act of conquest; possession of a common
history, language and culture regulated by
customary laws that are distinct from the
national cultures; possession of a common
land; exclusion or marginalization from
political decision-making; claims for collective
and sovereign rights that are unrecognized by
the dominating and governing groups.[italics
added] (p. 1264)
In the Philippines, these elements are echoed
by the IPRA definition of indigenous peoples /
indigenous cultural communities (ICCs). IPRA
declares that IPs / ICCs are:
group[s] of people or homogenous societies
identified by self-ascription and ascription by
others, who have continuously lived as
organized community on communally bounded
and defined territory, and who have, under
claims of ownership since time immemorial,
occupied, possessed and utilized such
territories, sharing common bonds of
language, customs, traditions and other
distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through
VOL. 8 NO. 1
resistance to political, social and cultural
inroads of colonization, non-indigenous
religions and cultures, became historically
differentiated from the majority of Filipinos.
ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who
are regarded as indigenous on account of
their descent from the populations which
inhabited the country, at the time of conquest
or colonization, or at the time of inroads of
non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the
establishment of present state boundaries,
who retain some or all of their own social,
economic, cultural and political institutions,
but who may have been displaced from their
traditional domains or who may have resettled
outside their ancestral domains. (Chap II,
Section 3: h)
In the international scene, the IPs became the
object of attention due to the initial and pioneering
efforts of the United Nations (UN). As recounted
by Barsh (1986) “the UN system first addressed
itself formally to indigenous issues in 1949, when
the General Assembly invited a Sub-Commission
to study the condition of indigenous America in the
hope that the material and cultural development of
these populations would result in a more profitable
utilization of the resources of the Americas to the
advantage of the world” (p.370).
This interest was followed by a series of
discussions, conventions/conferences, and
declarations based on a singular premise that the
social, economic and cultural situation of
indigenous populations hinders them from
benefiting fully from the rights and privileges
enjoyed by other members of the general
populations. This premise, nonetheless underlined
the realization that IPs, given their precarious
existence, need to have a set of special rights
over and beyond the rights enjoyed by members
of the general populations. Hence, the battle /
search for a precise definition of who comprises
the IPs became the tall order in succeeding years.
Interestingly enough, the definition was crystallized
and further fine-tuned through the enumeration and
identification of the sets of the IPs’ special rights
(Barsh, 1986).4
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CLAIM: THE CASE OF THE ARMM
The genealogy of the interest in the plight of IPs
in the Philippine was no exception. The Philippine’s
critical focus on IPs was engendered significantly
by the discursive momentum provided by
developments in the international arena as narrated
above. IPRA was heralded as a landmark
legislation not only to address the exploitations of
the IPs, but also to guarantee that they could be
fullfledged partners in the development agenda of
the Philippines (Tongson & McShane, 2004). The
General Provision section (Chapter I, Section 2)
of IPRA outlined the declaration of state policies,
the ambit of which is the recognition and respect
of the rights of IPs as evinced by their
considerations in the formulation of national laws
and policies and by their role in fostering national
unity and development. The IPRA definition of IPs
/ indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) quoted
above reflects these political nuances.
Ancestral Domains
In a 2001 publication, the National
Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP)5- the
administrative and implementing agency with the
mandate to deal with ancestral domain claims
among other concerns related to Philippine IPs,
defines ancestral domains / lands to:
include such concepts of territories which
cover not only the physical environment but
the total environment including the spiritual
and cultural bonds to the areas which the
indigenous peoples possess, occupy and use
and to which they have claims of ownership
(p. 2).
The definition, however, fails to capture the
broader socio-cultural meaning, the epistemological
features, of ancestral domain as invoked by
Philippine IPs. These epistemological features are
embedded in the notions of identity, property,
continuity and politics implicated in the concept.
First, ancestral domain is not just a piece (or
portion) of a territory. This territory supports not
only their biological and economic needs (different
land-use system, for example) but is also the basis
of their cultural identity (Prill-Brett, 1994; Bandara,
ERASGA, D.S. 35
2007). Conrado Balweg, former priest and leader
of the Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance (CPA) aptly
puts it when he said: “access to lands and
resources are sine qua non for survival. Without
land, we will die.” The Cordillera song quoted
below (cited in Carino, 2006) is illustrative of this
nuance:
Ancestral land where I was born/source of
livelihood/nourished my hard work, sweat,
blood and life. This is where the race rooted/
where the village has grown/where traditions
were learned/peoples’ homeland. This is
where homes were built/where rice grain is
planted. The mountains are our ancestors’
resting place. What our forefathers have
nurtured/let us not allow this land to disappear.
Inherited land/This is where I was born/where
I live/where I will die. (p.1)
As “property,” ancestral domain is not
exclusively owned by an individual member or
single family of the tribe. Rather it is owned by the
whole tribal community. Most ancestral domains
are home to rich natural resources including
biodiversity (Erasga, 1998; Ferrari, 2002; Rodil,
2003; Tongson & McShane, 2004). Resources,
by their very nature, are exploitable commodities
that could guarantee biological survival, economic
security, and environmental sustainability (cp. Prill-
Brett, 1997).
Ancestral domain connotes relations and
continuity. By underscoring the element of ancestry,
this concept is powerful in its ability to connect
three timeframes, past, present and future, within
a single invocation. Moreover, connections are not
limited to relations between people; ancestral
domain connects people with their physical
environment, whether it is land, water or forest
(Tauli-Corpuz, 2005).
Ancestral domain is central to the IPs struggle
to be recognized and to have their rights respected
(Mauro and Hardison, 2000). True enough, of all
the rights articulated by IPs (e.g., self-
determination, cultural practices and tradition, use
of their language) ancestral domain is, by far, more
concrete and tangible and clearly the most felt to
36 ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW VOL. 8 NO. 1

be threatened by development initiatives (cp Barsh
1986; and Anaya 1996) and by the globalization
process (Bandara, 2004).
Moreover, ancestral domain is a new catchword
coined to promote the rights of indigenous peoples
and an awareness of the lurking dangers faced by
IPs around the world. The neologism apparently
was created to replace several other terms that
had been used in promoting the rights of IPs, such
as “aboriginal lands,” “ancestral-historical
territory,” “traditional sacred lands,” and even
“ancestral lands.” With the term “ancestral
domain”, IPs have been able to articulate their
stakes and even convey their plight and
marginalization as a unique group of people.
Phrased differently, ancestral domain becomes a
heuristic concept that allows the IPs to embed their
agenda within the mainstream discourse of
governance in general and of political participation
in particular.6
Before the articulation of the concept of
“ancestral domain” IPs simply lived in accordance
with their traditional livelihood system. such as
owner-tiller small farm agriculture, swidden or
shifting cultivation, hunting and food gathering, and
pastoralism, all of which were based on their
traditional ecological knowledge (or TEK) (Tauli-
Corpus, 2005; see Johnson, 1998 for TEK; Perez
& Minter, 2005). The pragmatic foundation of
these customs and practices starts with the idea
that land is not property. Even if land is seen as
property, it is still owned by no one. Other
modalities of “claims” were also in place long
before the “CADC-CADT” discourse—from the
slash and burn (kaingin) practice to social forestry
to community-based resource management
(CBRM).
STATE OF ANCESTRAL DOMAIN
CLAIMS IN THE PHILIPPINES:
THE CASE OF THE ARMM IPS
Officially mandated to work on the cause of
Philippine IPs, NCIP started its operation in 1998
by virtue of the IPRA Law (Chapter VII). In 2002
NCIP issued its first administrative order (i.e.,
NCIP AO No. 01) in which was spelled out the
guidelines for the review and verification of
CADCs; later that same year, it awarded its first
two CADTs. This was followed by NCIP AO No.
2, Series of 2003 which revised the guidelines for
the conversion of CADCs to CADTs delineated
prior to IPRA (R.A. 8371). Before NCIP however,
the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) was the sole government
agency mandated by law to issue certificates of
ancestral land / domains claims.7

Table 1.
General Fact Sheet on Ancestral Domain from NCIP (2001, nationwide)

Estimated Total Area of Ancestral Domains 4.83 M Has.

Percentage to Total Philippine Land Area Covered Area 17%
by a Certificate of Ancestral Domain
Claim (CADC) Issued by DENR 2.532 M Has
No. of CADC Areas 181
Area Covered by new intents submitted to NCIP 2.298 M Has
Central Office for Survey and Delineation
No. of Intents for Survey and Delineation 100
Average size of AD for Survey and Delineation 22,980.00
N.B.: Based on NCIP, 2001 Annual Report Figures
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CLAIM: THE CASE OF THE ARMM ERASGA, D.S. 37

The NCIP 2001 Annual Report showed that
the estimated total land area of ancestral
domains was 4,830,000 hectares, comprising
about 17% of the total land area of the
Philippines. These ancestral domains were
occupied by almost 110 ethnolinguistic groups
or tribes. The same document reported 181
CADCs issued by the DENR covering 2,532,000
hectares. A total number of 100 new intents for
survey and delineation were submitted to NCIP
Central Office covering 2,298,000 hectares (2001
Annual Report, pp. 12-13, See Table 1 for
summary figures).
To date, the state of CADCs / CADTs equation
is something other than hopeful. This statement is
not unfounded, given the very skewed figures of
CADCs / CADTs vis-à-vis the number of intents
already lodged at the Commission as early as
2002. For example, Table 2 showed how little
has been achieved in terms of converting “claims
to titles.” Of the estimated 181 AD areas declared
in 2001, only 71 have been prioritized for surveying
and delineation for 2005; and only a handful of
CADTs (29) have been awarded from July 2002
to December 2004.8 An additional 27 CADTs
were awarded from 2005 to 2007. Areawise, only
1,116,349.111 hectares of CADT (or 23%) of the
total estimated CADC areas of 4.83 M has been
granted from 2002 to 2007 (Bistoyong, 2007, see
Table 3).

Table 2.
CADC Applications Prioritized for 2005 for Luzon and Visayas

Region No of CADC Applications Area

CAR 8 166,471.50
REG. I- Ilocos region 7 60, 838.51
REG. II- Cagayan valley 5 108,962.83
REG. III- Central Luzon 8 80,469.20
REG. IV- CALABARZON 11 341,852.61
REG. V- Bicol Region 3 25,448.00
REG. VI-Western Visayas 2 7,187.00
REG. VII- Central Visayas
REG. VIII- Eastern Visayas 0 0
Total 44 791,229.65
N.B.: Based on NCIP 2004 Accomplishment Report

Table 3.
Total Number of CADTs Issued by NCIP from 2002 to 2007 (nationwide)

Year No of CADTs Area (in has)

2002 2 41,255.9696
2003 9 326,001.0767
2004 18 236,796.6551
2005 9 237,004.4233
2006 18 269,049.4201
2007 1 6,241.5671
Total 57 1,116,349.111

N.B.: Based on R. Bistoyong (2007) Report

38 ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW VOL. 8 NO. 1

The picture is even gloomier in Mindanao where
most IP populations are thriving ( around 6.3
million, based on the NEDA statistics, Capones
2005). Expectedly, in terms of volume of CADC
applications and area size, Mindanao boasts of
more than 27 applications (as of 2005) and a total
area size of 630,334.12 haectares, a size
comparable to that of the combined Luzon and
Visayas CADC applications totaling 791,229.65
hectares (Table 4).
Of particular interest is the case of the ARMM
region. Table 5 clearly illustrates that no CADC
has ever been issued in this particular region of
Mindanao. It does not mean however that no
applications have ever been filed by any IPs in
ARMM. The case here is that the application
process for formal claim is an arduous task,
given some multilayered and even parallel
problems. Several of these hardships are quite
unique to ARMM IPs, given the political
dynamics of this portion of Mindanao. The
social history of ARMM has created a climate of
violence and political instability that has victimized
non-Muslim IPs more than it has, the Christian
population (Caballero, 2002; see also Kruezer,
2005).

Table 4.
CADC Applications Prioritized for 2005 (Mindanao)

No of CADC
Region Area (in has.)
Applications

REG. IX- Zamboanga Peninsula 7 125,981.00

REG. X-Northern Mindanao 6 79,142.73
REG. XI- Davao Region 7 233,333.39
REG. XII- SOCCSKSARGEN 3 103,080.00
REG. XIII- CARAGA 4 88,797.00
ARMM 0 0
Total 27 630,334.12

N.B.: Based on NCIP 2004 Accomplishment Report

Table 5.
Distribution of Approved CADTs from 2002 to 2004 (Mindanao)

Region CADTs Awarded Area (has)

REG. IX- Zamboanga Peninsula 3 24,841.516

REG. X-Northern Mindanao 4 118,202.87
REG. XI- Davao Region 3 142,033.53
REG. XII- SOCCSKSARGEN 2 8,653.7376
REG. XIII- CARAGA 1 11,811.6247
Autonomous Region of Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM) 0 0
Total 13 305,543.26

N.B.: Based on NCIP 2004 Accomplishment Report. No available data on the number of CADTs
awarded per region from 2005 to 2007; only the total number of CADTs from this year bracket
was provided by the Bistoyong Report (2007).
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CLAIM: THE CASE OF THE ARMM
POLICY CONTEXT OF ANCESTRAL
DOMAIN CLAIMS IN ARMM
My analysis suggests two factors that keep
ARMM IPs from securing their CADCs: 1) the
inherent limitations and suspicious intents of the
framers and supporters of the IPRA law; and 2)
the Muslims’ (at present, the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front or MILF) “separate set of claims”
to vast area of lands.
IPRA,9 believed to be a landmark law that will
once and for all address the plight of Philippine
IPs, remains to be a rather enigmatic piece of
legislation. For one, since IPRA received quite
remarkable support from interest groups, from
various IPs ranks to government officials to
industry lobbyists (e.g., mining corporations), its
critics (which included people from the same ranks)
suspected IPRA as a tool that would empower the
state to control and supervise exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources,
and consequently that would disempower the IPs
from freely using the resources in their ancestral
domains (Fulgar, 2007; Vargas, 2004). They
charged:
With the titling of ancestral lands through
the CADT of IPRA, ancestral lands become
privately owned, destroying our traditional
communal practice of ownership and land
use. With private ownership, foreign
companies can easily coerce or entice IPs
to sell their ancestral lands, because instead
of getting the consent of the whole
community, only the consent of the individual
the CADT is named after is needed.
IPRA is indeed a viable tool for the
government to facilitate the entry of foreign
projects in the indigenous peoples’ ancestral
lands ‘leaving us as squatters in our own
lands, threatened every now and then to
be displaced. Worst it breeds animosity and
disunity among our people causing tribal
wars over land disputes. Such disputes
were always easily resolved before
through traditional settlements but not
during the IPRA implementation. (Vargas,
2004 p. 2)
ERASGA, D.S. 39
Within the context of the ancestral domain
claims, the “Bangsamoro homeland” 10 (as they
initially called it) becomes a contentious issue, since
sizeable portions of non-Muslim IPs’ ancestral
domains “currently in application”11 are located
within this so called homeland.12 The homeland
concern is crucial because one of the pivotal issues
in the current peace negotiations between the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines
(GRP) and MILF is that of ancestral domain or
territory (Tumirez, 2005; see also Albar, 2007;
Usmat & Kabiling, 2007; and Mission, 2006).
Republic Act 9054 (or the Expanded Organic
Act for the Autonomous Regions in Muslim
Mindanao) is the single most lethal law that
invalidates whatever ammunition IPRA has in its
arsenal to advance the rights of Philippine IPs. This
Organic Act renders the NCIP inoperational in
ARMM and with it, the legal and structural bases,
instrumentalities and opportunity for ARMM IPs
to proceed with their ancestral domain claims.
Interestingly, RA 9054 expands the definition of
IPs to include the Muslims (Article X, Section 3b).
Within the context of ARMM, this law, in principle,
nullifies the Constitutional guarantee enjoining the
State to recognize the rights of indigenous
communities to their ancestral lands.13
Several other laws complicate the process and
procedures of ancestral domain claims filing. These
include the Mining Act of 1995 (R.A. 7942), the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. 6657)
and the NIPAS Act (R.A. 7586). The Mining Act
for example provides the legal basis for foreign-
owned firms to exploit mineral resources in any
part of the country. Investors are given liberal
conditions, including tax breaks and infrastructure,
such as access roads, transport facilities, and
energy sources, without first requiring them to
conduct environmental-impact assessments and to
consult with the people, particularly IPs, affected
by the mining operations.
Section 13 (Ancestral Lands and Rights over
Them) of the National Integrated Protected Areas
Act (NIPAS) empowers DENR to prescribe rules
and regulations governing ancestral lands within
protected areas. To date though, there has been
40 ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW
no consensus reached on how to combine the
granting of ancestral domain titles with sound park
management. Hence, the concerns for ensuring
sustainable resource management from within the
indigenous user-group, and for protecting the
domain from outsiders is compromised (cp. Perez
& Minter, 2004). Section 9 of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) requires the
issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBC)
to IPs before they can engage in agricultural
activities in their claimed ancestral domain. Overall,
this means that in addition to NCIP, the IPs have
to deal with several government agencies, each of
which may require equally cumbersome
procedures in their ancestral domain claims.
In addition, there are several forces at work
(external and internal to the tribal communities) that
further constrain both the ‘actual’ and ‘formal’
ancestral domain claim-making process: financial
resources to carry out surveying and titling
protocols;14 the lack of logistical support from
government officials like DENR and NCIP;15
circuitous procedures; lack of sufficient information
on how to proceed with their applications
(especially regarding which government office(s)
to submit their documents); the limited mandate of
the Office of Southern Cultural Communities
(OSCC) vis-à-vis processing of CADC
applications.16 There are also the vested personal
interests of local and even IP leaders bringing about
tensions in social and personal relationships of
several IP leaders; different political allegiances of
tribal communities (SunStar, 2006); changing land
use regimes (Prill-Brett, 2003); and illegal
occupation of portions of their ancestral domains
by armed groups (e.g. Camps Bader and Omar
which are now slowly being populated by the
families of the occupying armed groups) (Bandara,
2007), and by wealthy individuals and/or
companies, (e.g., logging and mining
concessionaires) (Miliudefensie et al, 2006;
Magdagasang & Riches, 1999; IFFC, 1997,
Mission, 2006).
These problems and issues are corroborated
by Rodolfo Stavenhagen, the UN Special
Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and
VOL. 8 NO. 1
Fundamental Freedom of Indigenous Peoples, in
his Philippine Mission Report (2003) wrote:
For poor indigenous farming communities
crucial land rights are addressed by filing legal
claims to their own ancestral domains and
titles. The process is cumbersome and
indigenous representatives perceive that the
business interests of private enterprises,
which over the years have encroached upon
their ancestral domains, are more protected
than their own rights based on land use and
continuous occupation. High poverty rates
and the lack of basic social services force
many indigenous people to migrate to poor
urban areas where the situation of women
and children is of particular concern (p. 2).
CONCLUSION
“Ancestral domain” is a recent political term
coined to both catalyze and mainstream the IPs’
political discourse on ancestral domain claim in
particular, and political participation in general. For
Philippine IPs, this piece of territory connotes
culture, identity, survival, and power. Hence, to
construe such claims as mere struggle for a piece
of material property, as traditional interpretation
would have it, is unwarranted. Unfortunately, in
ARMM, claims to ancestral domain are made even
more complicated by the unique historical context
of the Mindanao region itself.
Although the IPRA law provides legal basis for
ancestral domain claims for all IPs in the
Philippines, this “legal guarantee” remains both
elusive and illusory, in the face of several forces
which are at work specifically in ARMM. Two of
these forces are 1) the ARMM Organic Act (R.A.
9054) and other similar antagonistic laws, including
IPRA itself; and 2) the ongoing GRP-MILF Peace
Negotiations. The former sets formidable legal and
structural constraints on the process of filing
CADC applications; the latter excludes the non-
Muslim IPs (lumads) from the negotiating table
with the national government. In both cases, the
lumads are exceptionally disenfranchised of their
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CLAIM: THE CASE OF THE ARMM
“rights to claim,” and subsequently, of their “rights
to own.” The NCIP’s low performance record in
terms of processing CADC applications and issuing
CADT in ARMM especially of the IPs in
Maguindanao is indicative of these challenges.
These issues, however, have already been
partially addressed by recent developments in
terms of the IPs’ organizational structure,
mobilization practice and evolving perspectives on
political discourse. For example, the Timuay Justice
and Governance (TJG)17 is a strategic political
organization that has been created to respond to
the organizational requirements for collective action;
women, youth and students sectors are now being
tapped to join political activities like rallies (e.g.,
Lakbay Tribo). TJG recognizes (and emphasizes)
the complementation of tribal (i.e. indigenous) and
national (i.e. legal) frameworks to guide political
action and participation.
ENDNOTES
1
Based on the data collected for the SDRC-Upland
NGO Assistance Committee (UNAC) collaborative
Project entitled Process Documentation of the 3D
Mapping of the Teduray-Lambangian-Dulaang Manobo
Ancestral Domain Claim in Sitio Kefengfeng, St Upi,
Maguindanao.
2
CADC stands for “Certificate of Ancestral Claim”
filed by IPs / ICCs to document that the territory in
question is theirs. CADT (or the Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Title) is a legal document issued by the
government acknowledging such claim and allowing
activities within the claimed area.
3
For example, it was only in 1978 that the phrase
“indigenous people” became an accepted term to refer
to these special group of people dispersed / located in
different parts of the world and marginalized by
development efforts of their national governments.
Originally they were referred to as “indigenous
populations.” My particular reading of Barsh’s (1986)
article suggests that the concretization of the rights of
IPs did not make any significant strides in the
international discussion of discrimination and racism
until the term was finally accepted and agreed upon by
representatives of the Working Group on Indigenous
Populations tasked by the UN to look into the issues of
abuses and exploitations of so called “cultural
minorities.” The term “ancestral domain,” on the one
hand, has always been referred to in the international
ERASGA, D.S. 41
literature as ancestral land/ territory and/or sacred land.
This term, I suspect, gained momentum in the Philippines
probably during the 1987 Constitutional Convention
(ConCon). This explains why the earliest invocation of
“ancestral domain” so far, at least in the formal way, was
in 1987, by the constitution ratified that same year.
4
For a more detailed discussion of how these events
unfolded, see, Barsh, 1986.
5
NCIP was created by virtue of a provision in IPRA
(Chapter VII). One of its offices- the Ancestral Domain
Office (ADO), is directly in charge of all affairs pertaining
to AD claims and related matters.
6
For example, because of the concept of ancestral
domain, the MILF has had to recast its discourse on
“Bangsamoro homeland.”
7
See, DENR Administrative Order No.02, Series of
1993.
8
There was no data available pertaining to the actual
number of CADCs issued from 2002 to the present.
9
“IPRA was signed into law on October 29, 1997 by
then President Ramos. Hailed as landmark legislation,
the IPRA underwent many years of legislative study and
deliberation before it became a law. It is the result of
various consultations, consolidated bills related to
ancestral domains and lands, and international
agreements on the recognition of land/domain rights of
the IPs.” (NCIP, 2003)
10
By virtue of the “universal definition” of IPs, the
Muslims historically speaking, are “Islamized Lumads,”
hence could not qualify as IP. Cognizant of this
definitional problem, the Muslims are constrained to
invoke the word “ancestral domain” to refer to this vast
area of territory. Instead they speak of it as the
“Bangsamoro Homeland” which, within the context of
the current GRP-MILF Peace Talk negotiation discourse,
is technically referred to as the “Bangsamoro Juridical
Entity (Jacinto, 2006; Deutsche Presse Agentur, 2006;
Albar 2007, Barcelo, 2006).
11
Around 201, 850.00 has. covering 9 municipalities
in Maguindanao and 2 municipalities in Shariff
Kabunsuan.
12
According to Mohagher Iqbal, chief MILF peace
negotiator, the original ancestral domain negotiated for
by the MILF covers the whole of Muslim autonomous
region (ARMM) and other areas in Zamboanga del Norte,
Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga, Sibugay, North
Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat and Sarangani provinces,
where there are large communities of Muslims and
indigenous tribes and even Palawan Island in central
Philippines and the Sulu Archipelago (Mindanao
Examiner, 2007).
13
Philippine Constitution, Art II, Section 22 and Art
XIII, Section 6.
14
The Flow Chart of the CADC application is
suggestive of this circuitous procedure (see NCIP
42 ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW
website to view the CADC application flowchart and
procedures).
15
Sometimes, documents submitted by the tribes were
either lost by these agencies or missing in their office
archives.
16
The OSCC is a government agency that handles
the IP concerns in Mindanao. However, its mandate
neither includes the processing of CADC applications
nor the issuance of CADC / CADT (Bandara 2007).
17
TJG is a tribal title and system of governance
practice by the Téduray and Lambangian from the
beginning of their recorded history to the present. It is
characterized by a collective form of leadership and free
participation of the maginged (citizens) at assemblies
and fora called for by the Baglalan or tribal title holders
to accomplish the different modes of tribal governance.
In its historical evolution, the recorded highest level of
organizational formation reached by the Timuay system
was on the tribal level. Concomitantly, every tribal group
embracing the Timuay system of governance has its own
territory and center of governance; and its own laws,
defense systems and other programs to follow (Bandara,
2002).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albar, I.A. (2007). Manila resumes talk with
MILF. Retrieved Dec 12, 2007, http://
w w w. a r a b n e w s . c o m / ? p a g e = 4 § i o n
=0&article=102798&d=24&m=10&y=2007.
Bandara, A. (2007). Personal interview. December
12, South Upi, South Cotabato.
Bandara, A. (2002). The nature of the Timuay
justice and governance in Central Mindanao,
Philippines. Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières.
Retrieved December 18, 2007, from http://
www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article5255.
Barcelo, V. (2006, Feb. 4). Government, rebels
reach deal on ancestral property. Manila
Standard. Retrieved Dec 12, 2007, from http:/
/ w w w. m a n i l a s t a n d a r d t o d a y. c o m /
?page=news04_feb09_2006
Barsh, R. L. 1986. Indigenous Peoples: an
emerging object of international law. The
American Journal of International Law , 80
(2), 369-385.
Bistoyong, R. ( 2007). Achievements, CY 2002-
2007. A powerpoint presentation. National
Commission on Indigenous People.
VOL. 8 NO. 1
Caballero, E. (2002). Basis of conflict in ARMM
in relation to land and resources. Department
of Environment and Natural Resources-United
States Agency for International Development’s
(DENR-USAID) Philippine Environmental
Governance (EcoGov).
Capones, E. (2005). The Philippine Indigenous
Peoples: development and challenges. IAOS
Satellite Meeting, April 14-15, 2005,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Carino. (2006). Ancestral land, food sovereignty
and the right to self-determination:
indigenous peoples’perspectives on agrarian
reform. A paper contributed to the International
Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural
Development (ICARRD), March 7-10, 2006,
Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Deutsche Presse Agentur. (2006). Peace talks
between Philippines, Muslim rebels
deadlock.
Erasga, D. S. (1998). Gender and crop
biodiversity conservation: assessing linkages
and policy implications. A paper presented
at the 14th World Congress of Sociology, July
25 to August 1, 1998, Quebec, Canada.
Ferrari, M.F. (2002). WRM’s Bulletin Nº 62,
September, 2002.
Fianza, M. (2004). Contesting land and identity
in the periphery: the Moro Indigenous
People of Southern Philippines. Working
paper prepared for the 10th Biennial
Conference of the International Association for
the Study of Common Property, August 9-13,
2004, Oaxaca, Mexico
Fulgar. (2007). Native clearing: deceiving
indigenous peoples through IPRA. Retrieved
January 12, 2008, from http://
www.bulatlat.com/2007/09/native-clearing-
deceiving-indigenous-peoples-through-ipra.
Herz, R. (1993). Legal protection for indigenous
cultures: sacred sites and communal rights.
Virginia Law Review, 79 (3), 691-716.
International Fact-Finding Commission (IFFC).
(1997). We feel the pain of our mountains.
Retrieved from http://cpcabrisbane.org/
Kasama/1997/V11n3/Mindanao.htm
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN CLAIM: THE CASE OF THE ARMM
Jacinto, A. (2006). Moro rebels reject
government’s offer of limited autonomy.
Retrieved Dec 12, 2007, from http://
www.sunstar. com.ph/static/net/2006/09/10/
moro.rebels.reject.government.s.offer.
of.limited.autonomy.html.
Johnson, M. (Ed.). (1986). Lore: capturing
traditioal environmental knowledge. Ottawa:
IDRC.
Magdagasang, L & Riches, L.( 1999). Resource
development and indigenous rights in the
Philippines. Retrieved Jan. 4, 2008, from http:/
/www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/1999/
71.html.
Mauro, F., & Hardison, P. D. (2000). Traditional
knowledge of indigenous and local communities:
international debate and policy initiatives.
Ecological Applications , 10 (5), 1263-1269.
McDermott, M. H. (2000). Boundaries and
pathways: indigenous identities, ancestral
domain, and forest use in Palawan, the
Philippines.IASCP Meetings, May 31-June 4,
2000, Bloomington, IN. Retrieved Nov 5,
2007, from http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/
00000304/00/mcdermottm 061200.pdf.
Miliudefensie. (2006). Legal forest destruction:
the wide gap between legality and
sustainability. Retrieved Oct 12, 2007, from
http://pressroomda.greenmediatoolshed.org/
attached-files/0/80/8032/
Legal_Forest_Destruction_-
_February_2006.pdf.
Mission, G. (2006). Ancestral lands: Indigenous
Peoples’ weapon against poverty. Retrieved
Dec. 12, 2007, from http://gina.ph/
CyberDyaryo/features/f2000_0531_02.htm.
Molintas, J. M. (2004). The Philippine Indigenous
Peoples’ struggle for land and life: challenging
legal texts. Arizona Journal of International
and Comparative Law , 21 (1), 269-306.
NCIP. (2001). Annual Report. Manila: National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples.
NCIP. (2003). Annual Report. Manila: National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples.
NCIP. (2004). Annual Report. Manila: National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples.
ERASGA, D.S. 43
Perez, P & Minter, T. (2004). Indigenous rights
and resource management in the Philippines.
IIAS. Newsletter, 35 (November), 9.
Philippine 1987 Constitution.
Philippines: Indigenous people speak up on
ancestral domain. (Nov. 5, 2006). Sunstar.
Retrieved from http://www.sunstar.com.ph/
static/day/2006/11/05/news/indigenous.people.
speak.up.on.ancestral.domain.html.
Prill-Brett, J.(2003). Changes in indigenous
common property regimes and development
policies in the northern Philippines. Paper
presented at the RCSD International
Conference. Politics of the Commons:
Articulating Development and Strengthening
Local Practices, 11-14 July 2003, Lotus Pang
Suan Kaew Hotel, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Prill-Brett, J. (1994). Indigenous Land Rights and
L e g a l P l u r a l i s m a m o n g P h ilipppine
Highlanders. Law and Society Review , 28 (3),
687-698.
Rodil, R. (2003). Re-establishing order in the
community and its connection with
biodiversity conservation. Paper delivered at
the Seminar Workshop on Conflict
Transformation and Biodiversity Conservation
at the Country Village Hotel, Villarin St.,
Carmen, July 11-13, 2003, Cagayan de Oro
City. Retrieved Nov. 12, 2007, http://
cpn.nd.edu/Rudyrodil’s.doc.
Stavenhagen, R. (2003). Report of the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and
fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Mr.
Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Mission to the
Philippines. Retrieved Dec 12, 2007, from
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf /
e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4 /
568f8e64e2800006c1256cf7005d2593/
$FILE/ G0311521.pdf.
Sunstar. (2006). Philippines: Indigenous people
speak up on ancestral domain. Retrieved from
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/dav/2006/11/
05/news/indigenous.people.speak.up.on.
ancestral. domain.html.
Tauli-Corpuz, V. (2005). Indigenous peoples and
the millennium development goals. Retrieved
 44 ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW
Nov 23, 2007, from http://www.tebtebba.org/
tebtebba_files/ipr/mdg.html
Tongson, E. & McShane, T. (2004). Securing land
tenure for biodiversity conservation in
SibuyanIsland, Romblon, Philippines. Paper
presented at the EGDI and UNU-WIDER
Conference Unlocking Human Potential:
Linking the Informal and Formal Sectors
September 17-18, 2004, Helsinki, Finland.
Tumirez, A. (2005). Ancestral domain in
comparative perspective. Washington, D.C.:
United States Institute of Peace (USIP).
View publication stats
VOL. 8 NO. 1
Usman, E.K. & Kabiling, G.D. (2007). Phillipines:
Muslim leaders welcome peace move.
Retrieved Dec 12, 2008, from http://
www.mb.com.ph/MAIN20070814100260.
html.
Vargas, M. (2004). Indigenous groups decry 7
years of IPRA law. Retrieved February
15,2008, from http://www.bulatlat.com/news/
4-38/4-38-indigenous.html.