March - April 2018 ISSN 2243-8173-18-02

The resource persons in this roundtable

were:
Summary of Proceedings:
1. Mr. Edtami Mansayagan, past
Commissioner, National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP);
Roundtable Discussion on the
2. Professor Ponciano Bennagen, past
Implications of Federalism
member of the Constitutional Commission
(Con Com) that drafted the 1987
Constitution;
to Indigenous Peoples
The Committee on Indigenous Cultural Communities and Indigenous Peoples of the House
of Representatives partnered with the Institute for Autonomy and Governance and Konrad
3. Atty. Gregorio Andolana, past Adenauer Stiftung in the conduct of this roundtable discussion on February 7, 2018 at the
Congressional Representative; Speaker’s Social Hall of the HOR in Quezon City.

This report was prepared by the Committee on Indigenous Cultural Communities and
4. Atty. Basilio Wandag, past
Commissioner and past Executive Indigenous Peoples of the House of Representatives.
Director, NCIP;

5. Mr. Dominador Gomez, NCIP
Commissioner;
6. Atty. Norberto Navarro, NCIP
Commissioner;
7. Atty. Reuben Lingating, chair of the
government’s IP peace panel, Office of the
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
(OPAPP); and past NCIP Chairman;
8. Ms Zenaida Pawid, past NCIP
Chairperson, current Commissioner
Committee Chairman Nancy A. Catamco opened the roundtable
discussion. Vice Chairman Jose T. Panganiban introduced the participating
indigenous people (IP) guests. Other committee members present were
Rep. Amihilda J. Sangcopan, Rep. Wilter Wee Palma, and Rep. Allen
Jesse C. Mangaoang.
Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez also attended this meeting.
Fr. Eliseo Mercado, Jr., IAG Senior Policy Adviser, facilitated the ensuing
discussion.

This Policy Brief is published bimonthly.

Editor: Benedicto R. Bacani Associate Editor: Ramie P. Toledo Lay-out Artist: Hazelyn A. Gaudiano
DISCUSSION 1: Indigenous Self- Determination Under a Federal Philippines
Fr. Mercado and Prof. Bennagen presented a brief overview of IP rights. Both luminaries visited the IP
historical narrative behind the struggle of IPs for self-determination, beginning at the arrival of the Spanish
conquistadors, up to the present. The Spanish occupation premiered the struggle of the IPs against
enslavement and oppression, exacerbated by the enculturation of the Spanish word “moro”, and the term
“tribos independientes”. The American occupation carried on the subjugation through its policy of integration
of the so-called “non-Christian tribes”. IPs have always opposed integration and mainstreaming, seeing that
assimilation has been a tool to further divest them of their resources, culture and territories. as native titles, and to include this principle in the new Bill of Rights, along with other IPRA provisions. He saw
Self-determination, according to Prof. Bennagen, is already enshrined in the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act (IPRA). However, without its operationalization and genuine application in the quest of IPs for genuine
autonomy, practicing their justice system, forming their own organizations and tribal barangays, etc., federalism
will fall short of its goals and vision.
Prof. Bennagen pointed to the need to build on the gains of IPs through the centuries, particularly the four (4)
bundles of rights of the IPRA. He underlined the fact that IPs have remained the guardians of biodiversity in
their ancestral lands, having traditionally protected the environment since time immemorial. He believed that
their traditional conservation systems should be harnessed to minimize the impact of climate change.
On his part, Atty. Andolana discussed his experience in Congress in formulating the IPRA, or Republic Act 8371,
of which he was the main proponent. He drew parallelisms between the struggles waged by the Samaritans
of Palestine and the Philippine IP resistance to invasion and colonization. Their separate but analogous
experiences provided the model for the IPRA, a law founded on respect and recognition of “cultural identity”.
In regard to the issue of federalism, Prof. Bennagen expressed his disquiet over the proposed constitutional
shift. A federal form of government might still not be the answer to the issues plaguing the IPs, such as land
titling, recognition of ancestral domains, and the fact that IP rights already contained in the IPRA need further
enhancement and firming up.
Commissioner Wandag recounted that in the conferences and summits on the proposed change to a federal
system that he attended, the IPs have been vocal in their support for federalism. They drafted and submitted
various resolutions declaring their intent to collaborate with the government, recognizing that the State has
the capacity and political will to make significant change happen for IPs. They presented certain aspects that
should be factored in should federalism materialize, namely:
1) there must be an IP representative in the Constitutional Commission that will draft the
federal charter;
2) the current rights protecting ICCs/IPs already enshrined in the Constitution cannot be
reduced or rendered obscure;
Poli cy Bri ef I MARCH - AP R I L 2 0 1 8
2 | Summary of Proceedings: Roundtable Discussion on the Implications of Federalism to Indigenous Peoples
3) the IPRA should remain in effect despite a change in government; and
4) the ancestral domains will never revert back to the State.
In any charter change, important provisions in the IPRA should be included. Atty. Lingating said that federalism
should preserve IP rights and enshrine them in the new constitution. He observed that, although the recognition
of IP rights has slowly evolved, strengthened and expanded at each successive constitution, it is only IPRA
that fully recognizes these rights. He added that the policies of the State should consider ancestral domains
the need for IP representation in all the processes, including the consultative commission.
Commissioner Mansayagan expressed apprehensions over the precarious state of IPs in a federal system.
NCIP’s failure to come up with a straightforward definition of “indigenous people” indicates a deficient set of
categories that firmly defines just what makes a person “indigenous”. There is still a long way to overcoming
the imposed identity foisted on us by the colonial masters, both past and present. This artificial identity
intrudes on actualizing the “indigenous identity”, collective rights, and integrity of IP traditions. Commissioner
Mansayagan stated that the Philippines should learn from the experiences of IPs who have been practicing
proto-federal form of government since pre-colonial times.
Rep. Catamco raised concerns in regard to the government’s capacity to establish an IP state. She also inquired
as to the viability of a special administrative region vis-à-vis IP state. Further, she expressed reservations on
the future of ICCs/IPs in Mindanao and the Visayas, given that IPs there are disparate and disconnected from
each other, as compared to the more unified block of IPs in the Cordilleras.
In response to the query by Rep. Sangcopan on the geographical locations of all ICCs/IPs in the Philippines,
Commissioner Gomez confirmed the existence of a map locating all delineated ancestral domains. The
map, however, does not indicate the areas under application for CADTs. He mentioned that the Philippine
Indigenous Peoples Ethnographies (PIPEs) project of the NCIP, which aims to gather data on the welfare and
the way of life of all the ICCs/IPs in the country and which would include an all-encompassing map, failed to
take off due to budget cuts.
Rep. Panganiban requested Prof. Bennagen to walk the committee members through his experience as
Commissioner for the Constitutional Commission, explaining that his involvement will help to strategically
map out the next Constitutional Assembly having a representative who will become the voice for the IPs. In
response, Prof. Bennagen made mention of the original plan to bring in sectoral representation, an idea that
was later quashed, with the Commission deciding on a neutral person to represent the IP sector. Given his
anthropologic expertise, he sat as the IP sectoral representative.
Rep. Palma wanted to be clarified as to the end goal of the roundtable discussion: (1) Is the Committee
going to push for a separate state for the IPs; or (2) Is the Committee moving towards integrating the IPs
with the State that will be formed eventually under the federal system. Rep. Palma prompted the committee
P o l i cy B r i ef I M AR C H - AP R I L 2 0 1 8
Summary of Proceedings: Roundtable Discussion on the Implications of Federalism to Indigenous Peoples | 3
remembers to the fact that there are district representatives with IP population within their respective areas of Timuay Alim Bandara spoke out his opinions regarding self-determination, which, he maintained, meant self-
jurisdiction, citing the ARMM region which has IPs inside the core territory. He inquired whether the Committee governance in line with customary law. The practice of Indigenous Knowledge, Systems, and Practices (IKSP)
lean toward (1) adapting a system; (2) imposing IP rights; or (3) pushing for the creation of an autonomous is a manifestation of true self-determination; the territory and the system of governance should be primary. He
territory. Prof. Bennagen clarified that in the movement toward federalism with territorial units claiming a also opined that instead of having a mandatory IP representative to the government of the non-IPs, the non-
certain level of autonomy, these competing elements should be able to come together with the other territorial IPs must have a representative to the IPs’ government by virtue of self-governance and customary law. Taking
units claiming the same, and negotiate. For this reason, he continued, securing the participation of the IPs cue from self-determination, he suggested that native titles be created as separate political units for IPs.
will have significant sway towards unifying contending parties and interests, towards attaining peace in the
region. Speaker Alvarez disagreed with the proposal that IPs should still be part of the different states. What he
wants is separate states for the IPs. The federal government should respect what the IPs want based on their
Rep. Mangaoang averred to the notion of “BBL first before federalism”. He maintained that since the 1987 customary laws. For example, IPs do not have mayors or governors; they have datus and supreme datus.
Constitution mandated the creation of an autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao and an autonomous region Regarding titling of lands, IPs should not be under the same land titling system of the federal government. To
in the Cordilleras, it stands to reason that there should also be “autonomy first for the Cordilleras before preserve the culture, IP states should be left to govern themselves. Regarding territory, it does not need to be
federalism”. In response, Commissioner Zenaida Pawid zeroed in on the problem of making ancestral domain contiguous; territories can be carved out of different provinces, but they will all be under one administrative
as the basis of identity and self-determination, given that the ARMM and the CAR are divided administratively state. The Speaker also suggested the Malaysian model for the survival of the IP state, where they have a
into provinces or regions. She also posed two prejudicial issues: special fund to assist the poorer states. It would now become the responsibility of the federal government
to help the IP state survive while still respecting its autonomy. As of now, the Speaker is a “lone voice in the
1) The shift to federalism, which necessarily entails constitutional change, has catapulted the wilderness”, which is why he is drumming up support for the creation of two (2) IP states, one in Mindanao
matter of IP rights into a precarious limbo with IPs feeling the jitters of whether or not their and one in the Cordilleras.
constitutionally guaranteed rights be fully taken on board the new charter;
Former Chair Pawid asked if the IPs can be made co-owners of the natural resources. The Speaker replied
2) How the federal states will be formed continues to be shrouded in uncertainties to IPs. To that there is a need to identify the territories of the IPs, and that the IPs should be the one to create the laws
explain her views, Commissioner Pawid recounted, for example, how, once upon a time, the in their territories. He also stated that land titles issued in the IP areas should be deemed revoked.
Maranaws owned all of Mt. Apo and its environs. Their unquestioned ownership became shaky
when the colonizers set foot in the islands, and proceeded to cut up the territories and divided Prof. Bennagen shared that there were already discussions on having an IP state in Mindanao as early as the
amongst different tribes of Manobo. This is in contrast, for example, with the Kalinga people Con Com. What is most important is the full participation of the ICCs/IPs during the deliberation.
who, despite their 49 or 54 bogis, have always been united in their pursuit of a single ancestral
domain. Territorially, they know who they are, and they define themselves according to their Former Commissioner Mansayagan asked the Speaker for guidance on how to move on the ground to
keen sense of indigeneity. augment the Speaker’s “lone voice in the wilderness”. The Speaker answered that the problem isn’t as big in
the Cordilleras because the territories are already defined, unlike in Mindanao. He urged that we should start
Moreover, Commissioner Pawid addressed other sticky points on the definition of the term “native title”, to wit: immediately, by organizing a summit and identifying the areas or territories of the IPs, so that these areas can
be carved out. He said that there will be a Committee meeting on the final draft of the new Constitution, which
1) In the shift to federalism, care should be taken as to not gerrymander1 the native titles of the IPs. is why the input of the IPs must be brought to Chair Catamco to be accommodated in the drafting of the new
No matter how they are defined, if they belong to two provinces or two regions, they need to unite Constitution.
first as IPs; if they are Manobo, let them be Manobo first, and then ask them to define themselves.
Second, the CADT is the easiest way for IPs to lose their territories. They can be given a CADT,
Mr. Pablo Santos from Floridablanca, Pampanga shared his thoughts on the Aeta territories. Unlike the vast
but it can easily be taken away by a Memorandum of Agreement. It becomes the corporation that
dictates conditions over the ancestral domain. Cordillera territories, their territories from Central Luzon to Southern Luzon are sparse and scattered, and so
are the tribes. He found it hard to wrap his head around the talks on federalism, because if ever, it will only be
1
Def: Gerrymander - manipulate the boundaries of, for instance, an electoral constituency, so as to favor one party or class) https://www.bing.com/search?q=what+does+gerrymander+mean&F
ORM=QSRE1
a very small IP state. The Speaker answered by encouraging the Cordillera IPs to bring the other IPs of Luzon
under their wing, because that is what the IPs in Mindanao will be doing.
Gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander xxx
The term gerrymandering has negative connotations. Two principal tactics are used in gerrymandering: (1) “cracking” (i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party’s supporters across many
districts); (2) “packing” (concentrating the opposing party’s voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts); and (3) xxx homogenisation of all districts. In addition to its use
[of] achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class
group xxx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Poli cy Bri ef I MARCH - AP R I L 2 0 1 8 P o l i cy B r i ef I M AR C H - AP R I L 2 0 1 8

4 | Summary of Proceedings: Roundtable Discussion on the Implications of Federalism to Indigenous Peoples Summary of Proceedings: Roundtable Discussion on the Implications of Federalism to Indigenous Peoples | 5
Fr. Mercado recounted the summary of the discussions so far. 1) Mapping is already done based on ancestral
domains, the distribution of CADT, and the application of CADT. However, due to lack of funds, it is yet to
be completed. 2) It is important to win the other non-IP constituency to the cause and advocacy of the IP
agenda. 3) The right to self-determination of the IPs is really based on the ancestral domain, particularly in the
Cordilleras, the bogis (territorial boundary) is the political right to self-determination bound with the territory.
There is an appeal to the Speaker and to members of Congress against the gerrymandering of ancestral
domains, and that the integrity and identity of the peoples, and the collective or community ownership of the
ancestral domains be maintained. 4) The Speaker champions the IP agenda because he identifies himself
as an IP. He believes IPs should not be mixed with the other states, and should constitute a separate unit
within the federal state. Area contiguity is not a prerequisite, only that the areas form separate units in terms
of governance, laws, and rights to self-determination. He is a single voice, and he would like others to join
him as a unified voice for IP advocacy, particularly in drafting the new Constitution. He reiterated that the
consultative committee is simply advisory, and the power to change the Constitution lies with Congress in a
Constituent Assembly. What is important is to identify the IPs and their areas, which is important in carving out
their administrative areas or regions.
Former Chair Pawid shared that there are some congressmen who feel they are excluded from talks about
IPs because they are non-IPs themselves despite having a considerable IP population in their constituency.
She suggested tapping these congressmen to shoulder some of the costs of identifying the IP populations
and their territories.
Fr. Mercado decided to join Discussions 2 (Indigenous Political Structures Under a Federal Philippines)
with Discussion 3 (Advancing the IP Agenda in the Process of Charter Change), because these two
topics are related.
Former Commissioner Mansayagan elaborated on the earlier framework being pushed by Lumad Mindanao:
One tribe, One Territory, One Governance, which touches on the concept of native title. He suggested that
the NCIP come up with supplemental guidelines on the traditional territory of the IPs. He said that the current
delineation process of the NCIP, taken from DENR Administrative Order Series of 1992, gives an output - now
called ancestral domains - that does not really represent the territory of each of the ICCs/IPs. Delineation is
an expensive and long process, ending up with a CADT that has no commercial value; it is not recognized
by banks, so no actual economic activity can follow the issuance of an ancestral domain. The output cannot
possibly represent the whole tribe. The names of the mountains and rivers came from the IPs; each tribe
knows their metes and bounds, and just how far their territory extends.
Prof. Bennagen shared the studies by an American historian on the four different types of societies in pre-
Hispanic Philippines. 1) the classless society or the hunter/gatherer societies such as the Agta/Aeta/Ati; 2)
the plutocracy such as those in the Cordilleras and Mindanao, where there are recognized leaders; 3) the
warrior society, such as the Bagani in Mindanao and some tribes in the Cordilleras; and 4) the confederacy,
such as the Higaonon of Mindanao. He said that we must determine first what the IPs are capable of, and
second, what their capacity-building mechanisms are, since the evolving capacity of the ICCs/IPs must be
Poli cy Bri ef I MARCH - AP R I L 2 0 1 8
6 | Summary of Proceedings: Roundtable Discussion on the Implications of Federalism to Indigenous Peoples
determined when the equalization fund comes into play. He suggests that maybe the Speaker can allocate a
kind of participation fund, so constituents can have direct participation. He asked if there already is an existing
system already in place, and if there is, then it should be fully supported by the House.
Atty. Andolana discussed how the Philippine situation will be different from the other federal systems. What
we have is a unitary government, which will then fully devolve its sovereign and political powers to the federal
states. Unlike the United States model, there were already federal states, which then unionized, forming a
federation. He also discussed the three powers of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
Regarding executive power, the IP practice has always been collective leadership. Regarding legislative
power, it is exercised through representation from various tribes, which could be by election or representation
by the main tribes. Regarding judicial power, there should be a tribal court, with Justices to settle boundary
disputes and personal conflicts based on customary laws. He maintained that IPs should be allowed to file
cases of quieting of title and recovery of possession, especially if their land was taken forcibly or by deceit. He
also shares his opinion that Mt. Apo can be the main territory for the federal IP state in Mindanao.
Chair Catamco shared that the current proposal is to have five states for the entire Philippines. These are
the Bangsamoro state, the Mindanao state, the NCR state, the Luzon state, and the Visayas state. She then
asks if we can copy the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR), wherein an autonomous region is created first
before it transitions to a federal state.
Rep. Palma agrees that quieting of title would be a great remedy if there was basis for the ancestral claim.
Atty. Andolana explained that native title should have more weight, since it honors possession of the land
since time immemorial. Rep. Palma then asked what is needed to show the court that there is possession of
the land since time immemorial. To which, Prof. Bennagen replied that tangible evidence can be in the form
of permanent improvements introduced on the land, or in the form of testimony by the people who have lived
there. Rep. Palma divulged that the reason for the question was so that these items can already be included in
the new constitution. There should be an enumeration of the types of evidence that will suffice in a challenge
for quieting of title. This should be enshrined in a provision of the Constitution, which would then trump the
Rules of Court requirement for tangible evidence.
Commissioner Dominador Gomez said that IPs have been self-governing, self-determined, self-sufficient,
and self-reliant even before there was a Philippine government. The fact that IPs are still here is evidence
of their self-governance. They still have customary laws and institutions, manifested through the indigenous
political structures (IPS). He says that after interfacing the IPS and the Local Government Code, it revealed
that there was only one barangay service that does not exist in the indigenous political structure, and that
is solid waste management. Whether the IPs should be integrated in or separated from the federal states is
a question that should be asked of the IPs themselves. He emphasized that according to the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the IPRA, the IPS should be strengthened, with the DILG and the NCIP
ensuring that this IP governance structure, system, and institution should not be supplanted by other forms
of non-IP governance.
P o l i cy B r i ef I M AR C H - AP R I L 2 0 1 8
Summary of Proceedings: Roundtable Discussion on the Implications of Federalism to Indigenous Peoples | 7
Commissioner Norberto Navarro began by stating that his views are his own, and do not reflect the views of
the Commission. First, on advancing the IP agenda in the process of charter change, representation has been
mentioned many times, and hardly any mention of an existing mechanism on how to choose the representative
already in place: the Indigenous Peoples Cluster Conferences, a nation-wide gathering of authorized and
validated leaders of each ancestral domain. He said that the IPs are okay with whatever form of federalism
we take, as long as the four bundles of rights are protected, and the existing Constitutional provisions on
IPs remain untouched. However, he enumerated some provisions can be added to strengthen the rights of
the IPs. 1) Make the jurisdiction over IPs a reserved power of the federal government, or at the very least a
concurrent power, with parallel state provisions; 2) Create a constitutional body for IPs, with security of tenure,
fiscal autonomy, and exclusive and original jurisdiction over IP rights (there is current jurisprudence saying
the NCIP’s jurisdiction is limited to IPs within the same community); 3) Grant ownership of natural resources
within the ancestral domains to the IPs, including a substantive share in their utilization and exploration;
4) Allow genuine self-governance and recognize customary laws; 5) Grant representation in all levels of
legislative political units and other policy-making bodies (ex., reserved seats in federal and state parliaments);
6) In relation to the four classifications of lands listed in the 1987 Constitution, redefine ancestral domains not
as a fifth classification, but as a separate category altogether, to be considered as a political unit.
Atty. Lingating presented ways to move forward. The NCIP would need to map three classifications: 1) those
issued already with a CADT; 2) pending claims; and 3) CADT-ables. This is important in order to know the
basic political units that would constitute an IP state. A map showing these three would already show how the
IP states of Luzon and Mindanao would look like. He also said that the federal constitution is the most urgent
agenda here in Congress; the political conceptualization of an IP state can come later on, through the state
commissions. He has also been informed that the NCIP and the NEDA plan to hold a summit for ancestral
domain representations, and the resources for the summit can be used for mapping purposes, and also for
engaging Congress in crafting the federal constitution. The output of that summit should be submitted to the
Committee, which will then be dissected and submitted to the Committee on Constitutional Amendments.
OTHER RESOURCE PERSONS:
Bae Norma Rivera, head claimant of 15,000 hectares B’laan territory in Magsaysay (Davao del Sur), shared
her thoughts on self-determination. She claimed that it is the IPs’ right to choose their form of government,
including the political structure. Regarding the declaration of native title, the question is who will recognize it?
If the IPs recognize it as native title, the government won’t, as the NCIP has no authority to recognize native
title. She also reiterated Vice Chair Panganiban’s concern earlier, about how the IPs need a champion in the
consultative body, and strongly suggested Atty. Lingating. Regarding mapping, she pointed out that the ICCs/
IPs need to help the NCIP in carving out the territories.
Datu Ramon Mayaan (Arakan, North Cotabato), agreed with the shift to federalism. He also stated that there
are two faces to the IP. To the first is given the IPRA, the Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives
(IPMRs), and ancestral domains. The other face is the one being killed, the one whose territory is being
taken, the one being organized and forced to rally (something against their culture). He expressed his hope
Poli cy Bri ef I MARCH - AP R I L 2 0 1 8
8 | Summary of Proceedings: Roundtable Discussion on the Implications of Federalism to Indigenous Peoples
that there will be active IP participation in this discussion and lamented the split of their ancestral domain. He
called for all the agencies concerned to help each other in order to regain control of their ancestral domain
under federalism.
Conchita Discarga (Casiguran, Aurora) saw no problem with federalism. But she hoped that tribal chieftains
get some kind of honorarium. The IPMR gets paid, yet it is the tribal council that really does all the work. She
also hoped the B’laan be given their own federal state.
Datu Bruns Babelon (Arumanen Manobo, Carmen, North Cotabato) said that they already have an IPS in place,
confirmed last 14 October 2015, encompassing 11 municipalities in North Cotabato and 11 municipalities in
Southern Bukidnon. He saw it as a problem when a single IPS is split between two provinces, and hoped that
such a scenario will not pose any problem on the federal level. Political affiliation, Datu Bruns emphasized, is
among the problems on the ground as there have been victims of murder due to their political color.
Timuay Santos Unsad (former NCIP Commissioner, Upi, Maguindanao) lamented that IPs are always
invisible. When the charter is changed, IPs must be present, and they must be part of it. The IPs inside ARMM
already have their IPS documented. He mentioned their three levels of territory: 1) the whole; 2) the cluster
of villages (like a municipality); and 3) the villages (like a barangay), with differences in their boundaries.
Their governance system also has three levels: 1) the policy-makers; 2) the supreme council of timuays or
chieftains; and 3) the justice officers, or those who implement the acts of governance. There are also three
laws: 1) a supreme law, like a constitution of the tribe; 2) their customary laws; and 3) their penal code. Should
federalism be adopted, a territory of about 208,000 hectares, has already been delineated and submitted to
the NCIP, pending action. The budget for the delineation of their domain did not come from government, but
from private sources and non-government organizations (NGOs). He also wanted their territory to be declared
an IP autonomous political unit, using their IPS as the form of government.
Timuay Ronaldo Ambangan (Arumanen Manobo) shared his realization that “federalism” is actually a system
of government, which he thought to be a government project at first. People on the ground should be educated
that federalism is not a project but a law, a change in government, to avoid the same misconception he had
earlier. He also pointed out that one of the problems in his community is an increased membership of fellow
tribesmen to armed groups. He also compared how in practice, it is not necessary to ask what you need from
a tribal leader, because it is given to you inasmuch as he is able to, while with the government, you have to
ask for what you need. He also lamented that it is not only territory being taken from them, but even names –
some of their territories now have names like New Panay and New Cebu. And finally, he is of the opinion that
there should be two states in Mindanao: the IP state, and the Bangsamoro state.
Timuay Letecio Datuwata (Lambangian, Maguindanao) is concerned about the place of the IP within the
Bangsamoro territory. With the proposed federalism, he asks where the place of the IP would be in this new
form of government, fearing that they might have no place in either the Bangsamoro or the federal state. He
also complained about how their communities are being renamed with names of politicians alluding to the
disrespect of their self-determination and identity in such cases.
P o l i cy B r i ef I M AR C H - AP R I L 2 0 1 8
Summary of Proceedings: Roundtable Discussion on the Implications of Federalism to Indigenous Peoples | 9
Benjamin Magay (Region I) is the only representative from Region I, and also a former mayor of Cervantes,
Ilocos Sur. He pushed for strengthening local autonomy. Despite the Local Government Code, decentralization
still hasn’t been implemented fully, and the Local Government Code’s gray areas have been taken advantage
of by the national government agencies to centralize powers that have supposedly been devolved to the
local government units. He pushed for the creation of a new province from the IP municipalities of Ilocos Sur,
which will be under the IP state of Cordillera. He also hopes a representative from Region I will be put on
the consultative body in order to voice out these concerns and wishes that all provisions of the IPRA should
become state policies in the federal constitution.
Timuay Jimid Mansayagan admitted that the topic of self-determination is difficult for IPs because they have
no concept of it; parallelizing it to asking a fish what water is. The issue of federalism isn’t an issue with
them, because their territory is clear to them. If federalism is implemented, all that is needed is to recognize
their territory. They don’t need any system, because they already have their own. He shared the problem
of using phrases like “minor tribe” and “major tribe”, which they view as a form of discrimination. The term
“IP” is relatively new, and they are used to be called “minorities”, a term that has made them subject of
discrimination. For him, it is the majority that decides the fate of the minorities, and it will be the majority that
decides their place in the federal system. He recommended the demarcation of the original territory of the IPs.
He stated that they filed their unified claim for ancestral domain in 2004, with no progress. In 2007, they filed
a quasi-judicial complaint against the NCIP for the intrusion of a banana company into their territory, and to
this day, justice is nowhere to be found.
Wilborne Danda agreed with the shift to federalism, though he does not speak on behalf of his tribe in Zamboanga
Sibugay. He announced that they will be having a summit in Region IX, and hoped the Commissioner can
finalize the proposal so he can make a representation with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. He is also glad
that their congressman is present, to whom he can relay their financial problem.
Rep. Palma states that he has no problem with providing funding. He asked that he be given the time and the
exact date of the summit, and he shall accommodate their request.
Wilborne Danda continued that they have no problems in Zamboanga Sibugay. He calls on all leaders present,
that if there are any shortcomings, it is the leaders who are partly to blame. He encouraged them that if they
don’t have the guts to approach the political leaders, they will gain nothing.
Rep. Sangcopan asked the resource persons on their opinions on having tribal barangays. Chair Catamco
said that it would be better discussed in another committee hearing, since more time is needed for such a
broad topic. Prof. Bennagen explained that in Article X of the 1987 Constitution, authority comes from the
central government, then to the LGUs, then down to the barangay, which means there is no measure of
independence or autonomy for the barangay because this is linked to the authority of the higher political
units. Chair Catamco added that this will be discussed in the Committee on Local Government, not in this
committee, since there is a lot involved here, and all they want is to jump-start the discussion on federal IP
states or special administrative IP regions. Atty. Andolana says that for existing areas covered by CADT or
Poli cy Bri ef I MARCH - AP R I L 2 0 1 8
10 | Summary of Proceedings: Roundtable Discussion on the Implications of Federalism to Indigenous Peoples
with pending petitions for CADT, there is all the more reason for tribal barangays to be included as part of
the federal government. A tribal barangay does not need the 2,000 population requirement; a hundred or 200
people can be considered as a tribal barangay, which is a good step to being part of the federal government.
Fr. Mercado recommended that perhaps it is worth studying the system of the Native Americans in the US
as a possible model for the Philippines to adopt. They used to live in areas called “reservations”, now called
“pueblos”. They are actually treaty holders, and they are a state within a state, although the chief complaint
against that system is that perhaps they have too much independence.
Chair Catamco gave her closing remarks, and thanked the Speaker himself for calling the roundtable
discussion. She revealed that there are already initial plans in place, but they also wanted to hear from
the communities, and of course the experts. She shared that she is also a member of the Committee on
Constitutional Amendments, to ensure that the IP provisions in the 1987 Constitution will be included in
this new constitution. Although there is still a lot to be done with federalism, there already exists the IPRA,
which is a very big help to the IPs’ cause. If Region IX pushes through with the summit, she said that it is
necessary to come out with a position paper. There have been proposals that have already been read on First
Reading, and the plebiscite might be in October given enough time. She also announced that Fr. Mercado
has committed the IAG to work hand-in-hand with this Committee all the way, and that Atty. Jing Corpuz will
be included in the creation and drafting of the proposals, just like she did with the Bangsamoro Basic Law
consultations. Lastly, she urged all tribal leaders, to always voice out their concerns about the fate of the IPs
in face of the change to federalism.
Prof. Bennagen shared how an IP provision made its way into the Constitution. Before, there was context; the
commissioners wanted change, and the situation was very euphoric, the country coming off from a dictatorship.
He also said that Batasan was very open to lobbyists, with lots of talks, dialogues, and communication.
Under the framework of developing a solidarity network, he expressed high hopes for full communication and
greater interaction that includes the church and the academe, particularly in the talks of land rights. He also
mentioned using social media to further the IP agenda.
Rep. Catamco mentioned having suggested to the Committee the creation of a website, which can be done
in partnership with the NCIP.
Former Chair Pawid added that between the implementation of the IPRA up to the present, the transition has
not been guarded well. She calls for firm vigilance during the transition period whatever form of government
be decided on in order to effectively launch any new system.
Chair Catamco ended by thanking all the commissioners. She reminded them that in all their summits, it is
important to come out with position papers from the IPs. She reiterated Prof. Bennagen’s earlier call for a
solidarity network. And finally, she thanked Atty. Lingating, who, despite being with the OPAPP, also works
with her office and the Committee as a consultant for IP concerns and issues, especially in drafting the
provisions needed in amending the Constitution.
P o l i cy B r i ef I M AR C H - AP R I L 2 0 1 8
Summary of Proceedings: Roundtable Discussion on the Implications of Federalism to Indigenous Peoples | 11
 Shaping Public Policy
for Peace and Good Governance
The Institute for Autonomy and Governance (IAG) is an independent and
non- partisan think tank founded in 2001 to generate ideas on making
autonomy an effective vehicle for peace and development in the Southern
Philippines. IAG is an institutional partner of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung
in the Philippines.

KAS is in 5th floor, Cambridge Center Building, 108 Tordesillas Corner

Gallardo Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines,
telephone 894-3737.

Views and opinions expressed in IAG publications are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the Institute for
Autonomy and Governance or the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

More resources online Follow IAG

Institute for
Autonomy and
Governance
Notre Dame University, ND Avenue, @iagorgph
Cotabato City, Philippines 9600
Telefax (064)557 - 1638. Feedback

info@iag.org.ph
www. iag.org.ph

Note: To our regular subscribers, please notify us in case of change of address.