Indigenous people’s rights under Philippine law
It is ironic that, despite the existence of the NCIP and the law it purports to implement, a social media post from a relative of a member of an indigenous tribe was necessary to excite attention to a case of likely exploitation before the NCIP took notice and initiate a formal investigation into the matter.
Published in Daily Tribune on August 27, 2021
by: Juan Romulo R. Taleon
A famous blogger is enticing the public to enroll in a course to be taught by the revered Filipino tattooist Apo Whang-od Oggay, known as the last mambabatok (Kalinga tattooist) from the indigenous tribe of Butbut in Buscalan, Kalinga. Apo Whang-Od’s grandniece immediately resorted to social media to protest and at the same time urge netizens to stop the exploitation and disrespect of her grandmother. Ordinary people would ask, do we have laws protecting our indigenous people? How can the government stop the exploitation of our national treasure and culture? Do we have policies and laws for them?
Section 22, Article II of the 1987 Constitution declares that “[T]he State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development.” In this regard, congress passed RA 8371 otherwise known as “The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997”, part of which focuses on matters of “Cultural Integrity” and defines the undertaking of the national government to preserve and promote the culture, traditions and institutions of indigenous communities. Sections 31 and 32 of said law state:
Section 31. Recognition of Cultural Diversity — The State shall endeavor to have the dignity and diversity of the cultures, traditions, histories, and aspirations of the ICC/IP appropriately reflected in all forms of education, public information and cultural-educational exchange. Consequently, the State shall take effective measures, in consultation with ICC/IP (Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous People) concerned, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among ICC/IP and all segments of society.
Furthermore, the Government shall take effective measures to ensure that the State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. The State shall likewise ensure the participation of appropriate indigenous leaders in schools, communities, and international cooperative undertakings like festivals, conferences, seminars, and workshops to promote and enhance their distinctive heritage and values.
Section 32. Community Intellectual Rights — ICC/IP have the right to practice and revitalize their own cultural traditions and customs. The State shall preserve, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual, religious, and spiritual property taken without their free and prior informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.
RA 8713 also created the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) whose mandate is to implement the policies set forth by this law. This includes the “formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being of the ICC/IP and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as the rights thereto.” The basic mandate to “protect and promote the interest and well-being of the ICC/IP” relates to their beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions. Under the NCIP are various offices which tasked to provide the indigenous communities with the assistance they need to preserve their traditions and help them thrive despite their diversity.
It is ironic that, despite the existence of the NCIP and the law it purports to implement, a social media post from a relative of a member of an indigenous tribe was necessary to excite attention to a case of likely exploitation before the NCIP took notice and initiate a formal investigation into the matter. While RA 8371 deigns to ensure that indigenous communities are accorded all the opportunity and protection to promote and preserve their cultural heritage, such needs the active intervention of the NCIP to achieve the law’s intention. Given Whang-od’s case, the government must strictly implement said laws so that our brothers and sisters in the indigenous communities can make an educated decision that will benefit not only one person but the community as a whole. Educating indigenous communities as to their rights, privileges, and cultural legacy is an important step in their empowerment.
