Flawed consent by telecom firms

HAPPY WEEKEND
Gina Dizon

SAGADA, Mountain Province --Many a case has found out indigenous peoples communities opposed projects not having customarily passed their consent over a project introduced in their communities.

Case studies done by Montanosa Research and Development Center (MRDC) with the Task Force for Indigenous Peoples (TFIP) noted indigenous peoples communities’ opposition, and violation of customary practices in securing consent by telecommunication companies particularly that by SMART having constructed its telecom tower in Balugan, Sagada; GLOBE in PoblacionSagada and GLOBE in Dantay, Bontoc Mountain Province.

Telecommunication companies are not any different in their approaches from mining companies aggressively entering indigenous communities. Said cases brings additional instances to the recently questioned FPIC secured by Goldfields Mining Company on its drilling operations at Tabio, MankayanBenguet by the Kankanaeypeoples organization, Teeng di Mankayan; and the questioned FPIC secured by Royalco Mining Company from barangay officials of Gambang, Bakun by BakunAywanan aside from questioned FPICs secured in other indigenous peoples’ communities in the Cordillera and Mindanao.

In the light of questioned FPICs secured by mining and telecom companies comes proposed ammendments of the 2006 Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) guidelines of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) by congressional committee on national ommunities chairman Ifugao congressman Theodore Baguilat.

Precisely why projects are being opposed is ironical to the very customary practise of indigenous communities to give their collective consent over an undertaking introduced in their communities.

In the villages of Sagada and Bontoc populated by Applai and Bontoc indigenous peoples, this collective practise is still strongly observed as found out in case studies noting the people’s collective consent and peoples’ opposition to barangay clearances secured by telecommunication companies.

Group discussions and key informants noted consent given by the ‘umili’ referring to the people of the community-elders, leaders, women, and youth- take active part in coming up with a collective decision. The community consent is presided by a collective leadership of elders and other leaders of the ‘ili’ (community).

And in current local governance, the barangay captain or any of the kagawad preside over community meetings. Elders have influential role in decision making, especially so if the elder happens to be the barangay official also. Balugan elder

Matthias ‘Palikdan’ Caweng and former barangay kagawad said barangay officials who also are elders don’t separate their being community elders from their being barangay officials.

This is clearly taken note of in the case of Balugan where in such case, community projects introduced and other decisions affecting the community are presented to the collective for community consent, a decision arrived at in consensus based on their customary practices.

Consensus is the basic feature where an indigenous peoples community take decision in a consensual manner with other members of the community and not by votation. People come together and discuss the matter collectively on any issue which concerns the public, be it a mining, telecom, or any infrastructure project.

The consensual agreement takes on a discussion with the merits taken in and the questions and disagreements taken note of. It is of importance that questions are consciously considered and efforts taken to find out answers to these questions including conducting investigation and asking people who can answer the query. A single opposition cannot be taken for granted.

Community leader Martin Bagcalang and former chairman of the Pide Dap-ay Association, now PigsadagitiGardinerositiAbagatantiSagada (PIGAS) said any opposition is responded accordingly. He cited a case where one resident opposed a road project as her lot falls in the road right of way. He said she has to be convinced based on the rationale that giving up her lot for the road opening is for the good of the community particularly in the ease of carriage of vegetable produce and health facilities to the town center. All questions are taken note of and responded accordingly with the conscious attention that no issue goes un-answered.

Also, giving the consent is not a hastened nor a programmed process. As noted in Balugan, the community has to meet a number of times to resolve issues, major issue of which is the increase in the rent over the communal lot where the telecom tower was erected.