Sadanga officials nix IPMR existence; press review of NCIP laws

 SADANGA, Mountain Province – Municipal officials of this town along the border of Tinglayan, Kalinga recently approved a resolution challenging representation of the Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative (IPMR) to the local legislative body and declaring its official stand not to accept or recognize such representation in the council.

Mayor Gabino Ganggangan, said the Sadanga local government would like to test applicability of laws requiring an IPMR in local government units, saying they were pressing its abolition in areas where the law should not apply.

He said the Sadanga municipal council in an August 5 resolution, challenged the applicability of a provision in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8371) for IPMR to be included in all local legislative councils nationwide.

Those who signed the resolution were councilors Daniel G. Dawadeo, Juliet K. Chinalpan, Napoleon P. Sarang-ey, Dominga P. Chaluyen, Rufino C. Chakiwag, Ruben P. Atiwen, Moises P. Agmeyeng, Dimas A. Feng-ag, Iyan A. Lawagan and Vice Mayor Albert T. Ayao-ao as presiding officer.

Ganggangan affixed his signature indicating his approval in the resolution attested and certified by Victoria F. Yakak, secretary to the Sangguniang Bayan.

The Sadanga officials argued their elected officials already represent the IP community.

Sadanga Resolution No. 45-2019, also abolished the IPMR position that was opened by the previous council.

Ganggangan said the previous IP representative had been granted weekly honoraria – not a salary granted to all councilors – due to budgetary constraints leading the present Sadanga officials to ask why they needed one.

He said IPMR Jimmy Galingan had been insisting he should be given equal benefits like salary as that of an elected councilor.  

According to Ganggangan, the IPMR guidelines issued by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), and enforced by the Department of the Interior and Local Government, stated the IPMR is entitled to the same benefits granted to the whole council.

This means, he said, that former Sadanga officials have been violating the rules.

Section 16 of IPRA recognizes the right of indigenous communities “to participate fully, should they choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and destinies,” according to NCIP Administrative Order No. 3-2018, the latest revision of the IPMR guidelines.

Sadanga officials argued the local government, from the mayor down to village leaders, are members of the local tribe, making the IPMR unnecessary.

“After extensive debate on the issue, the [council]… opted not to allow a seat for the IPMR in as much as it would amount to a duplication of functions and the unnecessary waste of taxpayers’ money for a municipality already suffering from financial constraints,” the resolution stated.

Resolution No. 45, series of 2019 stated that notwithstanding the existence of NCIP Administrative Order No. 03 for the IPMR representation in the local legislative bodies, “we believe that the Municipality of Sadanga is well represented in all aspects by the elected officials being one hundred percent indigenous peoples themselves and there is no need for the inclusion of IPMR representation.”

Section 16 of Republic Act (RA) 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15 of NCIP Administrative Order No. 3 or the recent implementing rules and regulations provided for the mandatory representation of the IPMRs in local legislative bodies as well as their qualifications, functions, salaries and emoluments.

The resolution said the real issue at hand is whether or not there is a need for IPMR representation in a municipality composed of 100 percent indigenous peoples with 100 percent indigenous peoples elected officials such as mayor, vice mayor, municipal councilors, youth and barangay representatives among others.

The resolution stipulated that Sections 5 and 6 of NCIP Administrative Order No. 03 provided operating principles and coverage of applications of mandatory representation in the legislative council in which by expressed provision of law was designed to protect the indigenous peoples in the lowlands, hence, a pressing need of a mandatory representation of indigenous in the local legislative body for the protection of their very existence and interest in the lowlands.

According to the approved resolution, paragraph (a) concerning the existence of ancestral domain and paragraph (b) on the application of the threshold principle as enunciated in Section of the rules and regulations does not apply in the locality in as much as there is no such individually owned rights and holders of an ancestral domain in the town and that the so-called threshold principle is impractical if not ridiculous considering the fact that it would mean additional eight IP representatives in the local legislative council thereby making the number of the entire council to 18.

The resolution said paragraph © provided that in case paragraph (a) and (b) are not obtained, the concerned local government will still allow representation after an intensive debate on the issue.

Ganggangan said it was the decision of the municipal council not to allow a seat for the IMPR considering that it would amount to duplication of functions and unnecessary waste of taxpayer’s money to a municipality already suffering from financial constraints.

The mayor said the position of the local government against accepting IPMR representation in the municipal council should serve as a wakeup call for similarly situated local governments to make the same position because the concerns of indigenous peoples are already being performed by the 100 percent IP officials who were elected by the people in the town.