IPMR to Ombudsman: Suspend Sadanga execs

 Mayor, town council file injunction vs NCIP 

By Rocky Ngalob and Gina Dizon

SADANGA, Mountain Province – Docketed as L-2019-10-876, recently installed Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative (IPMR) of the Municipality of Sadanga, Jimmy Galingan, sought the preventive suspension of the Sadanga Municipal Council led by Mayor Gabino Ganggangan following their resolution barring the former from assuming his post as IPMR.

Galingan filed his complaint against the Municipal Council led by Ganggangan on Oct. 16 at the Office of the Ombudsman. 

He cited, among others that the Municipal Council led by Ganggangan, had utter disregard to the mandates of the law and rules and regulations, and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities.

Underscoring on their oath which they took before they assumed in the Sanggunian, Galingan stated that, “the passage of the of the Sangguniang Bayan resolution, confirmed by the Mayor, is an utter disregard of the laws and legal orders which is contrary to what was solemnly sworn during their oath of office.”

According to the complaint submitted by Galingan, he said acts of the Municipal Council preventing the IPMR to exercise his mandate is unreasonable, unfair, oppressive and discriminatory. 

He said contention of the Municipal Council that the IPMR is no longer necessary inside a legislative district which is predominantly occupied by IPs, does not hold water and is grounded squarely on self-vested interest.  

“The ultimate objective of the Municipal Council led by Ganggangan is to prevent the duly selected IPRM from exercising his mandate as provided for by law. They are questioning his being an IPMR to the Sangguniang Bayan yet they do not question the assumption of other IPMRs within the municipality. There are other IPMRs serving at the barangays within the municipality of Sadanga yet the respondents choose only to prevent the complainant from assuming and performing his mandate as IPMR,” stated the complaint.   

Galingan’s complaint disclosed his supposed assumption of office, if not barred by the Municipal Council, will be his second term as IPMR wherein his first term was not contested by the former Municipal Council.

Two of the respondents and current councilors namely, Juliet Chinalpan and Rufino Chakiwag were members of the Municipal Council of Sadanga from 2016 to 2019.

“Why is it only now that they are challenging the IPMR in the Sangguniang wherein they could have done the same during their former tenure as councilors?  This would only show that there is a resounding self-vested interest in preventing me to sit as IPMR,” said Galingan.

On August 5, the Sadanga LGU, crafted and signed Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 45, Series of 2019, challenging the applicability of representation of the IPMR to the Sangguniang Bayan and declaring Municipal Council’s official stand not to accept or recognize Galingan in the municipal council of Sadanga, Mountain Province.

This prohibited Galingan from his function as the duly selected IPMR of the municipality.

On August 19, after having knowledge of the said resolution, the office of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples – Cordillera Administrative Region (NCIP-CAR), issued a notice of warning citing possible criminal, civil and administrative charges against the Municipal Council of Sadanga led by Ganggangan.

Such charges would be necessary to uphold and protect the rights and interest of the indigenous peoples (IPs).

The notice from NCIP-CAR likewise clarified issues and legal questions cited in the municipal resolution.

Following the notice, on Sept. 5, the office of the Dept. of Interior and Local Government – Cordillera Administrative Region (DILG-CAR, issued an advisory to all Local Elective Officials (LCE) to “strictly observe the mandate of Republic Act No. 8371, specifically, ICC/IP mandatory representation in the local Sanggunian, in accordance with the National Guidelines for the Mandatory Representation of Indigenous Peoples in Local Legislative Council…”.

However, despite the said notice and advisory by NCIP and DILG, the Sadanga Municipal Council, filed for a petition for Declaratory Relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on October 10, 2019 with prayer for injunction against the NCIP, thus prompting Galingan resorting to the case file before the Ombudsman.

 Sadanga municipal officials led by Mayor Ganggangan and Vice Mayor Albert Ayao-ao filed a legal suit at the Regional Trial Court here challenging the application of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) provision mandating an IPMR in the municipal council.

This, as the temporary restraining order asked for by the petitioners was dispensed off during the Oct. 16 hearing with the statement of the NCIP legal counsel that NCIP does not have coercive powers to enjoin LGUs to place IMPRs in local government units’ legislative counsel, the petitioner’s legal counsel  Sergio Milan said in an interview.

Through their lawyer, Sadanga officials filed a petition seeking a declaratory relief and an injunction against the order of the NCIP for Sadanga officials to comply and allow the IPMR to sit in the council.

Earlier, Sadanga officials called for the non- application of the office of the IPMR to the Sangguniang Bayan in their resolution and the consequent Order of NCIP ordering Sadanga officials to allow the IPMR to sit in the municipal counsel as IPRA provides. 

In their SB resolution Number 45, series of 2019, the 10 members of the local legislative council chaired by Ayao-ao and backed by Ganggangan challenged the application of representation of the IPMR to the SB declaring their official stand not to accept or recognize such IPMR representation in the municipal council of Sadanga.

The Sadanga local government officials were of the position that the IPRA provision mandating an IPMR in the municipal council should not apply in LGUs like Sadanga where all the residents are 100% indigenous peoples.

Section 16 of the IPRA provides indigenous peoples (IPs) right to participate in decision-making which states, “ICCs/IPs (indigenous cultural communities/IPs) have the right 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.

Consequently, the State shall ensure that the ICCs/IPs shall be given mandatory representation in policy-making bodies and other local legislative councils.”

Milan said the injunction suit shall arrive at the correct interpretation of Section 16 of IPRA. The injunction case shall proceed during the next hearing on December.

"All the elected officials here from mayor to councilors are themselves indigenous so there is no need for an IPMR because the intent of that IPRA provision which is to guarantee that the IPs are represented in the council is already fully complied. The collective interests of the IP in Sadanga are already fully and ably represented by the current elected officials. This IPMR is just a duplicity and a surplusage resulting to waste of fund considering that Sadanga is a 5th class municipality which is already financially strained”, Ganggangan said.

The SB of Sadanga maintains that the real issue rests on whether there are a hundred percent IPs living in a locality concerned for an IPMR; and for the municipality of Sadanga populated by a hundred percent IPs should there be an IPMR allows a duplication of functions and unnecessary waste of taxpayers’ money to a municipality already suffering from financial constraint.

Sadanga’s population and residents is composed of a hundred percent indigenous peoples from the different sub tribes coming from its eight ethnolinguistic sub tribes namely iSacasacan, iDemang, iBelwang, iSaclit, iBekigan, iAnabel, iSadanga Poblacion, and iBetwagan.

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and Memorandum Circular 2010-119 of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) calls for an IPMR to sit as a mandatory representative to IPs among indigenous cultural communities in local legislative councils who shall receive the same benefits and compensation as the other elected barangay kagawad, municipal councilors or provincial board members.

While this is so, some persons are asking why there are no IPMRs in some cities like Manila and Quezon City and provinces where IPs are the minority so to represent IP rights pursuant to IPRA.