HAPPY WEEKEND

IPRA and the UN Declaration on rights of indigenous people
Gina Dizon

The adoption of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples last Sept. 13 comes as a victorious shout for the world’s 370 million indigenous peoples. One hundred forty four nations favorably adopted this landmark declaration during the UN’s General Assembly at New York, USA. Eleven abstained to name Bangladesh, Bhutan, Russia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Samoa and Ukraine,

Categorically voting against the landmark declaration were Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand. The 25-year-long contentiously negotiated Declaration though not legally binding to approving states, provides a moral force on protections for the human rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and resources and to maintain their unique cultures and traditions.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chairperson on the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues called on governments, the UN system, indigenous peoples and civil society at large “to rise to the historic task before us and make the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a living document for the common future of humanity.”

The declaration sets out indigenous peoples’ individual and collective rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other related issues.

It promotes their "full and effective participation" in all matters that concern them, and their right to remain distinct and pursue their own visions of economic and social development

“The importance of this document for indigenous peoples and, more broadly, for the human rights agenda, cannot be underestimated,” said General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa in a statement delivered by Assembly Vice-President, Aminu Bashir Wali of Nigeria.

She warned even with the progress achieved by events such as the 1995 first United Nations International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and the beginning of the Second International Decade last year, native peoples still faced marginalisation, extreme poverty and other human rights violations. They were often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threatened their way of life and very survival; and, suffered from a lack of access to health care and education.

In the Philippine setting where Congress favorably passed the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act in 1997, implementation of provisions in the law still needs to be realized. Lack of budget hampered and continues to hamper the full implementation of the law.

Of particular instance is the hampered issuance of certificate of ancestral land claims and domain titles recognizing the rights to ownership and possession of indigenous peoples communities over their ancestral lands.

Why the government will enact a law and not give the necessary budget to let the law be realized is something that needs more urgings for the government to take a second look at. Along with this predicament, lack of budget also hamper the resolution of disputes which go along with the delineation of boundaries of ancestral claims.

The provincial district office of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples at Mountain Province sets a clear example of an office where tribal and boundary disputes are piled up needing the necessary budget and technical expertise to handle the disputes.

This is to mention one regional NCIP hearing officer whose office is in Baguio City. Party respondents and complainants who filed tribal related cases at NCIP’s provincial office, most of them are frail and old from Mountain Province have had to travel a six to ten hour ride to reach the regional hearing officer’s office in Baguio.

From what I know, the regional hearing officer’s transportation costs are not officially covered well enough for him to travel to Mountain Province to listen to NCIP-MP’s clients.

Also, customary laws though these are specially recognized in the law are not specially identified and brought into mainstream law for necessary and ready use during conflicts, arbitration or mediation. That is, the needed budget is wanting for the needed research and documentation in order to know what these customary laws are.

Initiatives of NCIP including the provincial consultative bodies which was launched three years ago remain hanging in the air due to lack of budget. These PCBs are designed to act as monitoring bodies to projects which affect indigenous peoples’ territories.

Volunteering elders and individuals have pitched in their time and efforts initially but these remain suspended due to lack or no budget to realize these these lofty endeavors.

NCIP Director Ronald Quilaman whom I had a conversation with five months ago when he visited his hometown in Sagada, said there was no budget yet for implementing the ideals of the ingeniously crafted PCBs. Too bad.

Right to claim parts of the reservation as provided in the IPRA is another question which has something to do on the interpretation of the law. Some Bontoc ancestral land claimants who filed cases at the Mountain Province’s NCIP against the provincial government find it doubly hard to let the IPRA work in favor of them. Where the government may use arguments like “public interest” may get in the interest of ancestral land claimants.

While we hail the adoption of this much hankered UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, its national manifestation, though its not legally binding, still remains a struggle in local realities.

The UN declaration is a product of indigenous peoples’ participation in the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations (UNWGIP) established in 1984. The draft declaration was endorsed by the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in 2006, and the UN Economic and Social Commission (UN ECOSOC).