A second look at Filomena C. Ateo-an’s CALT application

HAPPY WEEKEND

Gina Dizon

BONTOC,Mountain Province -- It was in 2001 when Filomena  LosfenganCalsimanAteo-an filed for a  certificate of ancestral land title (CALT) before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples whose mandate it is to implement the  Indigenous Peoples Rights Act  (IPRA) of 1997.  It was 11 years after when the NCIP gave a favorable decision  for issuance of a CALT, opposed by the provincial government of Mountain Province using  a proclamation order and the IPRA itself on its public welfare exceptional clause. 

It was a century ago in June 28, 1910 when the Philippine Commission under the American Government issued Resolution Number 29 delineating area and boundaries of the Bontoc townsite   covering the land area of the provincial government. The Phil Commission further issued resolution number 75 identifying Lot 8 of the hospital reservation part of which now stands the Bontoc General Hospital. 

That was a hundred years ago and Resolution Number 75 stands to wrest control over the application of  FilomenaLosfenganCalsimanAteo-an for a  CALT  of her  ancestral lot some parts of which are located within the land covered by RN 75.

Following the IPRA  and processes conducted, NCIP regional chairman Sancho Buquing issued a favorable decision over the CALT application of FilomenaAteoan on  Dec.14, 2012 based on an earlier recommendation from the provincial delineation team of NCIP-Mountain Province.

Application of IPRA extends to recognition of ancestral lands over  government reservations. Now this is where the issue lies in the contest between CALT petitioner Ateoan and the provincial government of Mountain Province.

 IPRA in its reason d’être states that “indigenous peoples have the right to their ancestral domains even if covered by proclamation or reserved for various purposes”. This  dangled an exception which reads, “except those reserved or intended for common and public welfare and service.”  

What guides the public interest clause of the IPRA over a claimed private ancestral lot as one characterized with public welfare? What guides NCIP to base an ancestral lot as one with public service? 

Are there customary rules and practices to guide NCIP and concerned offices to  say that an ancestral lot is one with public interest?  Otherwise, the IPRA is a useless law much as any ancestral land or domain could be considered as one characterized with a public welfare purpose. Yet, for asserting a right to an ancestral land or domain and finding justification in the registration of a CALT over an ancestral land, the IPRA remains a saving grace to the recognition of ancestral lands left for searching, stamping and asserting policies of customary practises over what may be a lapse in the law. 

Located just near her ancestral house, the 1,265 square meter lot contested by the provincial government  which claims that it is part of a hospital reservation is too  culturally sensitive and edgy  a protest  filed and pursued by  heirs of  CALT-petitioner,  Filomena  Ateo-an. Subject lot  located at Caluttit, Bontoc  refers to the lot where the  doctor’s   old red brick cottage surrounded by fruit trees  is located adjacent the ancestral home of  the CALT petitioner .

Government reservations  covered  lands of  the indigenous peoples of Bontoc  much as  lands that  the American  government declared for  reservations  in other places  where  indigenous peoples resided  and considered  part of their ancestral  domains  where they source their  food,  firewood, and build their houses on and thus are private in nature, individually, by clan or as a collective ownership. 

On the contrary,  these  reservations following the  Regalian doctrine that the American government inherited  from its predecessor the Spanish government  held ownership of all  lands  including public lands that government considered  forest  and public land   by virtue  of PD 705 which in its very  coverage are lands  20% in slope  and over where IPs are found living in mountainous areas.

This contradiction finds reconciliation in the IPRA which again gets back its very lofty reason for being, unless interpreted  wisely; a law that NCIP has to interpret very meticulously  within the call of customary law and practices vis a vis public welfare, otherwise  it loses its being for existence.  

The petitioner’s application dates back in 2001 when she filed her application for a CALT before the NCIP of an ancestral lot covering 4,238 square meters. Her application was one among a few CALT applications filed three years after the passage of the IPRA in 1997. 

In the  investigation of  NCIP-Mountain Province, the lot has been since time immemorial possessed, managed and  occupied by  spouses  Losfengan and  Twaa Tay-og  and passed on to their only child Angela  Calsiman  then to Filomena Calsiman Ateo-an.

With the coming of the Americans in the early years of 1900, they built the capitol building, the hospital building and the doctor’s building all made of red bricks. 

On said reservation lot was where the doctor’s residence  was built in 1920  despite the protestation of the family of  the Losfengans as noted in an  NCIP investigation,  the American government proceeded to build the doctor’s cottage. The doctor’s cottage served as residence of Dr Hillary Pitapit Clapp the first medical doctor from Bontoc.

On December 2001, the provincial NCIP office received the application of FilomenaAteo-an and filed  at the regional hearing office of NCIP CAR eventually referred to the office of the regional director for his decision. It was again re- applied on 2011 and recorded on the ancestral domain record book with attachments including the genealogy, family tree and old pictures.

Following Administrative Circular No 1 series of 2008 also known as the omnibus rules on delineation and recognition of ancestral lands and domains, Regional hearing officer Brain Masweng decided on October 25, 2011 that case is transferred to the NCIP regional director for his disposition.

The Mountain Province-NCIP formed the Provincial Delineation Team on November 15, 2011 and subjected the application for ocular inspection. A conflict resolution was conducted on Dec. 15, 2011 where  CALT petitioner and the provincial government were asked to make proposals for an amicable settlement.  Resolution was arrived at that the provincial government and the petitioner shall wait for the conflict to be resolved at the regional level of NCIP.

This leading the PDT to recommend that conflict be resolved by the regional director and eventually   decided on by   regional director Buquing dismissing the opposition of the provincial government and favoring issuance of a CALT for FilomenaAteo-an on Dec. 14, 2012.

Comes now the opposition of the provincial government  resting its basis on the legal imprints of  the hospital reservation and the public interest clause of IPRA.

The hospital reservation wants to develop the area for a pathological laboratory, a morgue, a chapel and a sewage treatment plant. With a residential houses located within and around a projected site for a morgue and  sewage treatment plant, how do the people of  Caluttit look at  a morgue and a sewage treatment plant just very  near their very own residences? 

Over and above such an absurd contestable development expansion plan of the hospital considering the present, the ancestral claim of  FilomenaCalsimanAteo-and stands as a dominant assertion of  the lot located within and adjacent her ancestral house clearly showing that it is part of her immediate private property where she moves around.

The Bontoc people know this especially the relatives by consanguinity and affinity  of  Filomena  Losfengan Calsiman  Ateoan when they  signed a resolution  favoring the claim of petitioner’s heirs  protesting the petition of the provincial  government  upholding ownership of  the local governments ownership of the contested 1,256 square meters.

Indeed, in this case where ancestral lots are located adjacent and within ancestral homes and not directly used for a park, a hospital or a government office, the wisdom of IPRA on its public welfare clause cannot be interpreted encompassingly.