IP-Community participation is the heart of FPIC
>> Friday, February 11, 2022
IP CONCERNS
LA TRINIDAD, Benguet -- It
has been long-settled that the FPIC process, by the spirit of the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act or IPRA, is community-centered undertaking. Apart from
procedural in form, it is a substantive right due to the Indigenous Cultural
Communities / Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) as an expression of their right to
Self-Determination and that only through religious compliance to the FPIC
process, that such expression can be achieved.
IPRA has recognized and accorded all ICCs/IPs their rights to FPIC process. And as a yardstick for such process, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the main agency created by IPRA to implement the spirit of FPIC, has promulgated a guidelines to serve as rules in its execution. Said guidelines is a product of series of enhancements and amendments starting from 2002 to 2006, then to the prevailing FPIC Guidelines of 2012. It is a continuous enhancement. Each amendments leading to the 2012 guidelines were corrections from the wrongs from its baby years. And by looking at its genealogy, it portrays how the past 2002 and 2006 led to the fortification of the IP community participation in the FPIC process enshrined in the prevailing guidelines.
In general, both 2002 and 2006 FPIC guidelines were seen as divisive. It is divisive since it only focuses on the directly affected areas as the main actor in giving or withholding consent for either intrusive or non-intrusive projects. Community participation is limited only to those who are physically impacted while setting-aside neighboring portions even if the latter are culturally attached to the area as one Ancestral Domain (AD).
One Ancestral Domain, One unit
As a cure to the wrongs ofth previous guidelines, the NCIP Commission En Banc (CEB) through the Chairmanship of Zenaida Hamada-Pawid, ratified the 2012 FPIC guidelines that encourages more on community participation as one AD and one single unit. Here, directly or impact areas are now focused on the entirety of the AD and not only portions thereof.
This enhancement in the 2012 FPIC guidelines significantly cured the divisiveness nature of the previous guidelines in the implementation of the FPIC process. The guidelines advocated, as it should be, the IP community or AD participation in the whole conduct of the FPIC process. The same guidelines also gave power and premium to the IP community in their collective decision-making and restricted the monopoly authority to individuals.
In its salient provisions, the 2012 FPIC Guidelines expressly stipulated that “…an Ancestral Domain shall be recognized and treated as one or undivided unit”. The provision opened the door to all IPs dwelling within an AD, as one single unit, to participate in the FPIC process. No longer will the AD be again be divided between the directly affected from the less-affected.
In practice however, this is not absolute. The community, if they so choose and decide, may give premium to the directly affected barangay or sitio within their AD in the decision-making. This exemption can only be done however through customary collective decision-making of the AD deciding as one single voice.
Power to the IP Community
Other salient provisions of the FPIC Guidelines fortified the power of the community to validate and/or affirm any agreements that will affect not only the FPIC process but the AD as well. They hold the power to validated and affirm the FPIC decision-making process including the naming and giving of authorization to their list of elder/leaders as their juridical person in the FPIC process. Notwithstanding the chosen elders/leaders, it is the IP community who commands the limitation in giving authority to the same, as their juridical person, such as in negotiations and signing of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
Authority to negotiate and sign the MOA given to their juridical person, as stipulated in the FPIC guidelines in between community assemblies and consensus-building / decision-making stage, is suspended until the IP community is ready to dispose their decision. Only when the IP community is ready that the chosen elders/leaders, as the community’s juridical person, can partake in the FPIC process. It is the elders/leaders, as stated in the FPIC guidelines, who will communicate to the NCIP of the consensus of the IP community. Needles to state, they are the mouthpiece of the IP Community.
It should be noted that, traditional elders/leaders are different and must not be confused with the authorized or chosen elders/leaders. The latter is just the juridical person or representative of the AD. These authorized elders/leaders are the mere creation of the traditional elders/leaders together with their fellow AD holders acting as one. A clear illustration would be the group-reporter reporting in behalf of his groupmates in every typical classroom group-work activities.
Should there be favorable consent from the IP community, the elders/leaders may be authorized to play the role as negotiators. Any negotiated terms and conditions between the negotiators and proponent will be reduced into writing as the draft MOA. Though the elders/leaders may have acquired authority to sign MOA, they are however barred from signing the same without first the appropriate validation and affirmation of the contents of the draft agreement by the IP community. This clearly stated in the FPIC guidelines requiring the draft MOA particularly the contents thereof to be first read in full, aloud and explained by the NCIP to be understood then affirmed by the community. Should there be need for any change/s as seen appropriate by the IP community, the NCIP shall make the appropriate revision or amendment to the satisfaction of the community. All of these must be done through a community assembly within the affected AD.
The IP Community Participation still does not end there. Even after the culmination of the FPIC and the Certification Precondition (CP) is already issued, the IP community’s participation still not divorced. This because the IP community plays a very important role in the crafting of the Community Royalty Development Plan (CRDP), which would in turn, will be the basis for the implementation of the royalty shares and other benefits.
Heart of the FPIC
Time and again we witnessed problems concerning the FPIC process. A lot are rooted when the IPs and/or some of their community members are boxed out in participating in the process due to differences. In fine, there will always be an adverse and conflicting opinions from the IP Community. But sure enough, said conflicting views the sole purpose why the consensus-building stage of the FPIC process was expressly emplaced. This stage of the process cannot be rushed nor can be given a time-period.
The existence of conflicting views is the perfect environment where a true IP elder/leaders is tested. An IP elder/leader who embraces intrusive projects which may adversely affect the community in the name of an outsider’s concept of progress, is no less than the IP elder/leader who opposes the same all because of sustainable community-centered development. However, to see both IP elders/leaders with clashing views open their opinions for deliberation between among their fellow IP community members towards achieving a consensus decision, as one single unit, would be a joy for the rest of us to behold. Obviously, a true IP elder/leaders mirrors the IP community’s interest and not his own personal whims.
It must be understood that it is the IP community, comprising the traditional elders/leaders along with their fellow AD holders, as one single unit, who holds the sole authority to seat at the driver’s chair and stir the wheel that carts the collective decision of the AD. Non-recognition of this process and the paramount value weight of the community’s full-participation in the decision-making and FPIC process will be the undoing of an elder/leader.
Undoubtedly then, full IP community participation is what makes the FPIC process tick and whole. Without it, and once broken, even with all the king’s men and army of lawyers, no amount of post Unilateral Affidavit of Undertaken can stitch back Humpty-Dumpty back whole again. //Rocky Ngalob
IPRA has recognized and accorded all ICCs/IPs their rights to FPIC process. And as a yardstick for such process, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the main agency created by IPRA to implement the spirit of FPIC, has promulgated a guidelines to serve as rules in its execution. Said guidelines is a product of series of enhancements and amendments starting from 2002 to 2006, then to the prevailing FPIC Guidelines of 2012. It is a continuous enhancement. Each amendments leading to the 2012 guidelines were corrections from the wrongs from its baby years. And by looking at its genealogy, it portrays how the past 2002 and 2006 led to the fortification of the IP community participation in the FPIC process enshrined in the prevailing guidelines.
In general, both 2002 and 2006 FPIC guidelines were seen as divisive. It is divisive since it only focuses on the directly affected areas as the main actor in giving or withholding consent for either intrusive or non-intrusive projects. Community participation is limited only to those who are physically impacted while setting-aside neighboring portions even if the latter are culturally attached to the area as one Ancestral Domain (AD).
One Ancestral Domain, One unit
As a cure to the wrongs ofth previous guidelines, the NCIP Commission En Banc (CEB) through the Chairmanship of Zenaida Hamada-Pawid, ratified the 2012 FPIC guidelines that encourages more on community participation as one AD and one single unit. Here, directly or impact areas are now focused on the entirety of the AD and not only portions thereof.
This enhancement in the 2012 FPIC guidelines significantly cured the divisiveness nature of the previous guidelines in the implementation of the FPIC process. The guidelines advocated, as it should be, the IP community or AD participation in the whole conduct of the FPIC process. The same guidelines also gave power and premium to the IP community in their collective decision-making and restricted the monopoly authority to individuals.
In its salient provisions, the 2012 FPIC Guidelines expressly stipulated that “…an Ancestral Domain shall be recognized and treated as one or undivided unit”. The provision opened the door to all IPs dwelling within an AD, as one single unit, to participate in the FPIC process. No longer will the AD be again be divided between the directly affected from the less-affected.
In practice however, this is not absolute. The community, if they so choose and decide, may give premium to the directly affected barangay or sitio within their AD in the decision-making. This exemption can only be done however through customary collective decision-making of the AD deciding as one single voice.
Power to the IP Community
Other salient provisions of the FPIC Guidelines fortified the power of the community to validate and/or affirm any agreements that will affect not only the FPIC process but the AD as well. They hold the power to validated and affirm the FPIC decision-making process including the naming and giving of authorization to their list of elder/leaders as their juridical person in the FPIC process. Notwithstanding the chosen elders/leaders, it is the IP community who commands the limitation in giving authority to the same, as their juridical person, such as in negotiations and signing of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
Authority to negotiate and sign the MOA given to their juridical person, as stipulated in the FPIC guidelines in between community assemblies and consensus-building / decision-making stage, is suspended until the IP community is ready to dispose their decision. Only when the IP community is ready that the chosen elders/leaders, as the community’s juridical person, can partake in the FPIC process. It is the elders/leaders, as stated in the FPIC guidelines, who will communicate to the NCIP of the consensus of the IP community. Needles to state, they are the mouthpiece of the IP Community.
It should be noted that, traditional elders/leaders are different and must not be confused with the authorized or chosen elders/leaders. The latter is just the juridical person or representative of the AD. These authorized elders/leaders are the mere creation of the traditional elders/leaders together with their fellow AD holders acting as one. A clear illustration would be the group-reporter reporting in behalf of his groupmates in every typical classroom group-work activities.
Should there be favorable consent from the IP community, the elders/leaders may be authorized to play the role as negotiators. Any negotiated terms and conditions between the negotiators and proponent will be reduced into writing as the draft MOA. Though the elders/leaders may have acquired authority to sign MOA, they are however barred from signing the same without first the appropriate validation and affirmation of the contents of the draft agreement by the IP community. This clearly stated in the FPIC guidelines requiring the draft MOA particularly the contents thereof to be first read in full, aloud and explained by the NCIP to be understood then affirmed by the community. Should there be need for any change/s as seen appropriate by the IP community, the NCIP shall make the appropriate revision or amendment to the satisfaction of the community. All of these must be done through a community assembly within the affected AD.
The IP Community Participation still does not end there. Even after the culmination of the FPIC and the Certification Precondition (CP) is already issued, the IP community’s participation still not divorced. This because the IP community plays a very important role in the crafting of the Community Royalty Development Plan (CRDP), which would in turn, will be the basis for the implementation of the royalty shares and other benefits.
Heart of the FPIC
Time and again we witnessed problems concerning the FPIC process. A lot are rooted when the IPs and/or some of their community members are boxed out in participating in the process due to differences. In fine, there will always be an adverse and conflicting opinions from the IP Community. But sure enough, said conflicting views the sole purpose why the consensus-building stage of the FPIC process was expressly emplaced. This stage of the process cannot be rushed nor can be given a time-period.
The existence of conflicting views is the perfect environment where a true IP elder/leaders is tested. An IP elder/leader who embraces intrusive projects which may adversely affect the community in the name of an outsider’s concept of progress, is no less than the IP elder/leader who opposes the same all because of sustainable community-centered development. However, to see both IP elders/leaders with clashing views open their opinions for deliberation between among their fellow IP community members towards achieving a consensus decision, as one single unit, would be a joy for the rest of us to behold. Obviously, a true IP elder/leaders mirrors the IP community’s interest and not his own personal whims.
It must be understood that it is the IP community, comprising the traditional elders/leaders along with their fellow AD holders, as one single unit, who holds the sole authority to seat at the driver’s chair and stir the wheel that carts the collective decision of the AD. Non-recognition of this process and the paramount value weight of the community’s full-participation in the decision-making and FPIC process will be the undoing of an elder/leader.
Undoubtedly then, full IP community participation is what makes the FPIC process tick and whole. Without it, and once broken, even with all the king’s men and army of lawyers, no amount of post Unilateral Affidavit of Undertaken can stitch back Humpty-Dumpty back whole again. //Rocky Ngalob
0 comments:
Post a Comment