Over the Hill is Home
Philippine’s IPs and Heritage Protection As economic necessity and a climate crisis leave no part of the world untouched, countries around the world are reframing their standards for growth. One way to go at it is through the not-so-new concept of heritage. It has been a global exercise where states protect unique features of their cultural and natural environment, and regard them as assets to be projected globally. Assisting in the protection of claims to land, resources, and intellectual property, I propose that this disposition can help our archipelagic, multicultural country cultivate better livelihoods especially for marginalized groups such as the IPs.
IPs in the Philippines have been struggling to sustain their heritage since the 1980s. When the government began to destroy their land, their culture went with it as well. These actions have been passable under the law and now are even enabled by President Duterte’s violent remarks against their communities. The Regalian Doctrine, which holds the State as the sole owner of lands, continues to reign in our constitution, allowing for capitalistic ventures to be prioritized over CADT applications that protect the IP’s rights to their land.
If CADTs are given, the Lumad can reside in their homes and continue their relationships with the environment, but for the past 20 years, our government has failed to make moves for indigenous heritage. Some countries have protected their own assets for recognition and have even garnered revenue and prestige from what they are naturally adept with. Such is the tree resin from Amazonian tribes and the nuts from Brazil. In both examples, protected land has been the main driver of the produce quality. With that priority, livelihood can be ensured. Instead, our path has been geared toward capitalist development that destroys nature. For example, instead of elevating the non-timber products and agricultural goods harvested by the IPs, mining in Zamboanga Peninsula and legal approval of the Kaliwa Dam were the chosen paths to aid development.
The lone stronghold left defending IP rights is their Free, Prior and Informed Consent- a right to be consulted before any development venture takes place in their ancestral domain. Essentially, the FPIC is a political wager for IPs to suggest whether or not development should take place. However, to institutions, this is seen simply as a yes or no answer easily invalidated vis-a-vis the given development path. Evaluations for past implementations all indicated failure- that there was not enough institutional capacity to enforce and assist such a wager. With that, IPs deliberately lose all means of political negotiation and protection against legislations like the Regalian Doctrine.
If this country is to celebrate multicultural diversity, and even hold the SEA Games, then it should also stand alongside people in defending their land and rights. Instead, war is waged upon citizens for the profit of multinational companies. With this in mind, the Philippines has yet to unite towards the overall protection of livelihood rooted in context- in the name of protecting culture, environment and the people that have given it life.
Sources America, Oxfam (2013) Free Prior and Informed Consent in the Philippines: Regulations and Realities. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/files/fpic-in-the-philippines-september-2013.pdf (Accessed: 7 October 2020).
Erasga, Dennis. (2008). Ancestral Domain Claim: The Case of the Indigenous People in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Asia-pacific Social Science Review. 8. 10.3860/apssr.v8i1.704.
Displaced Drafts for Displaced Persons (2020). Available at: https://angeencomienda.livejournal.com/2600.html (Accessed: 7 October 2020).
Doyle, C. (2019). The Philippines Indigenous Peoples Rights Act and ILO Convention 169 on tribal and indigenous peoples: exploring synergies for rights realisation. The International Journal of Human Rights, 24(2-3), 170–190. doi:10.1080/13642987.2019.1679120 Mindanao, 3. (2020) Filipinas Heritage Library | The Lumad of Mindanao, Filipinaslibrary.org.ph. Available at: https://www.filipinaslibrary.org.ph/articles/the-lumad-of-mindanao/ (Accessed: 12 October 2020).
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (1998 ) RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ RIGHTS ACT OF 1997” , Wipo.int. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ph/ph083en.pdf (Accessed: 7 October 2020).
Team, M. et al. (2019) Indigenous Struggles: A Shortfall of Philippine Democracy, Democratic-erosion.com. Available at: https://www.democratic-erosion.com/2019/12/09/indigenous-struggle-a-shortfall-of-philippine-democracy/ (Accessed: 7 October 2020).
