Remembering Robredo / IP reps in LGU bodies

 HAPPY WEEKEND

Gina Dizon

 It took 13 years from the  passage of the 1997 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA)  when the late  Secretary Jesse Robredo of the  Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)  assumed the post and issued Memorandum  Circular  2010-119  providing mandatory representation of indigenous cultural communities/ indigenous peoples  in policy making bodies and other local   legislative councils.

This circular is a most vital policy the 112 indigenous peoples tribes in the country who compose some 15 % of the total population, remember the late DILG Secretary for, aside from other admired works and attitude the late Secretary has that people appreciate in him. May he rest in peace.

To streamline and officially place indigenous people’s representatives in local policy making bodies and ensure their voice, the DILG Circular adopted National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Administrative Order No 001 series of 2009 setting national guidelines for the mandatory representation of indigenous peoples in local legislative councils.  IPRA provides in section 16 that “the State shall ensure that ICCs/IPs shall be given mandatory representation in policy making bodies.”

Sec. 16 of said IPRA specially provides for the right to participate in decision –making by indigenous communities “to participate fully, if they so choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and destinies through procedures determined by them as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous political structures.”

Robredo in his memo circular directed local chief executives to strictly observe the mandate of IPRA for mandatory representation of ICCs/IPs in the local sanggunian, in accordance with NCIP’s national guidelines.

ALL DILG regional directors are also directed to cause the immediate and widest dissemination of the memorandum circular to all LGUs and provide technical assistance.

Said circular adapted minimum qualifications of an IP representative, provisions on disqualification and removal from office, selection and assumption into office; powers, duties and functions, compensation and benefits of the qualified IP representative.

            ***

A salient provision in the guideline is selection of the IP representative where they are “chosen by their own communities in accordance with a process to be determined by them.”

Indigenous decision making processes are taken note of to distinguish from contemporary government practices of taking on decisions usually done the votation or appointive way.

An established indigenous practice of decision making is the consensus method where issues and concerns are discussed with the presence of community members. Meetings are chaired by elders and leaders of the village and decisions take note of by the community, meaning all the people present in meetings.  

Issues are discussed with benefits presented and opposition critically deliberated on to make sure that hazy or categorical protest is not left unaddressed. It follows that choosing a representative for the community in meetings outside of the village follows from this practice.

How the tribes shall choose their representative for the NCIP-DILG mandate to implement mandatory representation of IP is now tricky. If tribes are not alert, politicians may take advantage of IPs naivety specially located in isolated areas on government laws and practices.  

In a very cultural  setting as  Sagada located in Mountain Province of the Cordillera  are found  tribes in specific zones -- the  iPidlisan tribe in the northern barangays of  Bangaan, Madongo,  Tanulong, Fidelisan, Pide, and Aguid.

Though each have barangay and tribe have their own self ascription of calling themselves as iBangaan, iPide or iMadongo, all from the northern barangays call themselves iPidlisan.  With this setting, it is thus expected that one representative shall speak for the iPIdlisan tribe in this government mandated mandatory representation where such is the case.

Similarly, the eastern tribes composed of the barangays of Antadao, Kilong, Tetep-a Sur and Tetep-an Norte call themselves as iKiltepan thus belonging to the iKiltepan tribe. A representative is expected to be chosen following this setting.

In the southern barangays of Ankileng, Suyo, Nacagang, and Taccong are traditionally referred to as i-Naguab. One of the oldest settlements of Sagada is Balugan considered as one of the tribes among the iNaguab.

Interesting to note are the central barangays of Patay, Dagdag, and Demang and Ambasing. Whether people here shall come up with one representative or a representative per barangay-tribe is the question.

While old settlements -Dagdag and Demang- have common cultural and historical features with four and seven dap-ay tribunals respectively besides being two of the oldest barangays in the municipality, Patay has only one dap-ay and a relatively newer village with strong Anglican Church influence as compared to Dagdag and Patay with more cultural foundations.  Ambasing has much more a different setting with no cultural dap-ay but a Polistoan where people often congregate in a venue bearing a history of Aglipayan influence.  

On the other hand, whether tribes here shall elect their IP representative via the ‘dap-ay’ membership is another interesting angle to take note of. One family here belongs to a dap-ay. Cultural celebrations such as begnas are attended by household members primarily aside from community. There are 26 dap-ay in the southern zone, 26 in the northern barangays, 19 in the eastern zone and 12 in the central barangays.

Whether Sagada shall select via zone-tribal representation and selecting among themselves the IP representative or via the ‘dap-ay’ and a federation of dap-ay representatives coming together to select their representative, is interesting to know. It is more interesting should there be another modified way of the IP rep selection and how the IP rep is finally selected.   

Or whether the tribes here shall not choose an IP representative to the local Sanggunian is their own choise and right to opt so.

Other IP communities have their own manner and indigenous practice, and this, local legislative councils and the executive departments of LGUs are not the ones in command unless local guidelines are identified by the indigenous communities and adopted as a municipal LGU guideline.