Indigenous Peoples
Concerns
Rocky Ngalob
“Those who have less in
life should have more in law” – Ramon Magsaysay, Philippine former president.
Recently, a
bomb was dropped in Baguio through a Supreme Court decision reversing the
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeal (CA) in CA - G.R. SP No. 126498
including the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Resolution Nos.
107-2010-AL and 108-2010-AL. Said decision practically voided Certificate of
Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs) earlier awarded to some of the Baguio Ibaloi land
claimants.
In the 17
pages Supreme Court, Second Division ruling, penned by former Acting Chief
Justice Antonio Carpio ruled sating, “…private respondents’ rights over the
subject properties located in the Townsite Reservation in Baguio City were
never recognized in any administrative or judicial proceedings prior to the effectivity
of the IPRA law. The CALTs and CADTs issued by the NCIP to the respondents are
thus void.”
The decision
reaffirmed Section 78 of IPRA by extracting its legislative intent through the
unearthing of the Congressional Deliberations on both the House and Senate
Bills wherein Baguio City’s land areas were excluded by the framers from the
coverage of IPRA particularly the City’s Townsite Reservation.
Notwithstanding
the decision of the high court, and for the benefit of discussion, allow me to
present my five cents worth regarding the decision. My stand however does not
reflect the stand of my office but as a personal reflection from a migrant
Cordilleran Native who have considered Baguio as his home. With this, let me
start by citing the landmark case of Mateo Carino. This because, one cannot
appreciate the wisdom of Ancestral Lands without tackling the case of Mateo
Carino.
In the said
case, Mateo Carino is a native who applied for the registration of a certain
land. He and his ancestors had held the land as owners for more than 50 years,
which he inherited under native customs.
There was no
document of title issued for the land when he applied for registration. The
government contends that the land in question belonged to the state wherein,
under the Spanish Law, all lands belonged to the Spanish Crown except those
with permit private titles. Moreover, there is no prescription against the
Crown.
The United
States Supreme Court ruled in favor to Mateo Carino. Justice Holmes declared:
“It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far as
testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim
of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way
from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.”
Basically
Justice Holmes pointed out the existence of native titles to land, or ownership
of land by the native [Indigenous Peoples] by virtue of possession under a
claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the
Spanish Crown, as an exception to the theory of Jura Regalia which was later adopted as the Regalian Doctrine.
The Native
Title as the exemption to the Regalian Doctrine later became the spirit of the
landmark legislation RA 8371 or otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. IPRA, as a curative law, obviously was legislated to
correct and/or cure the historical injustices done to the Indigenous Peoples
(IPs) by the hordes of colonizers resulting to among others, land
dispossession, differentiation and marginalization of the IPs.
In fact, if
we look back in history, lands of Baguio, in the very first place, were
acquired forcefully against the will of the native tribes whom have already
established domicile therein. Before Burnham Park, Camp John Hay and other
American-named parks were erected, and before the establishment of Baguio as
the Summer Capital of the Philippines and a Townsite Reservation, lies the
Native communities living within those lands. It is there were their ancestral
homes, pasture lands, farm lands and even their cemeteries are situated.
These Native
communities however vacated these lands and were forcefully cast to the sides
and outskirts of Baguio in order to pave way for the said American amenities.
Needless to say, lands owned and possessed by the Baguio Natives then were
appropriated, disposed and delineated by the Americans against the former’s
will.
With that in
mind, and in the advent Supreme Court ruling, I guess it is safe to say that
the best angle in construing Section 78 should’ve been done; by reading Section
78 in parallel with the entirety of IPRA and just the mere Section alone.
Our history
dictates that from birth, towards the enactment, Baguio played an essential
role to IPRA’s realization. To think that Baguio is outside the coverage of
IPRA is like stripping the IPs of Baguio off their rights - rights which were
fought and asserted by their ancestors.
What’s clear
is that, if IPRA was read in its entirety, it can be ascertained that it did
not exclude Baguio City from its coverage. This because, if not for the case of
Mateo Carino which highlighted the plights of the IPs during the colonial
times, the concept of the Native Title as articulated by Justice Holmes
would’ve not been put into words in the landmark jurisprudence which served as
the springboard in the enactment of IPRA.
IPs
particularly those heirs of the Baguio
Natives who
were cast aside, were given the chance to attain Social Justice through IPRA by
allowing them to have their Native Titles be recognized through the issuance of
CALTs and CADTs. However, this chance for Social Justice to correct the
historical wrongs was swept away due to the present ruling of the Supreme
Court.
The
declaration of Baguio as a Townsite Reservation is a mistake, and if we allow
the wisdom of the Native Title to bow down to such mistake, then we are
institutionalizing an illness thus eroding the very value of Social Justice
ingrained in the curative law IPRA.
The challenge
currently being faced by IPRA in Baguio is not the first and surely it won’t be
the last. In fact, IPRA has met challenges even greater, one that even
challenged its constitutionality.
But no matter
how great the challenges were, IPRA emerged as the victor.
In these
challenges, particularly on the one being currently impressed to the IPs of
Baguio, one thing is for sure; it is not IPRA that is being tested nor the
rights of indigenous peoples; as these rights have not ceased to exist, and are
only awaiting society’s ability to recognize them.
What is
currently on trial is the willingness of our bureaucracy and people seated in
power to finally rid themselves of prejudices and misplaced fears.
The IPs, especially those who believed and
fought for IPRA, their crusade did not end with its enactment. They are mindful
that their crusade is a continuous struggle to rid our nation from the
historical injustice introduced by our colonizers that’s now on the verged of
being institutionalized in our bureaucracy. It’s all about changing mindsets
and ill-chosen prejudices
No comments:
Post a Comment