IPs’ right to self-determination determined by others

IP CONCERNS

Rocky Ngalob      

BAGUIO CITY -- My five years at the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) taught me tip-toe on a very thin line so as not to the stain my impartiality in the conduct of the Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
    I learned to numb my emotions towards proposed projects to be situated within the Ancestral Domains (ADs of the Indigenous Peoples (IPs).
    My personal views towards mining, dams, logging and any other invasive projects became immaterial in every evaluation, review and/or facilitation of the FPIC process I’ve done.
    This I must do in order to maintain the sanctity of the FPIC due to the IPs for the full and genuine realization of their right to self-determination.
    Some of my colleagues might not agree with this. A handful of principled colleagues will say, NCIP’s partiality must be tilted for the IPs considering that IPRA, a legislation enacted solely for the IPs, was meant to protect, recognize and respect the rights of the IPs.
    While the unfortunate majority will argue that they are for pro-development and pro-progress projects by siding any corporation wanting to use and exploit resources within the ADs.
    Thus, they will muster all of their connections and influence to lobby for any projects, they deemed it for development and progress, and sway the IPs into accepting or consenting to such.
    Resultantly, those IPs who will resent or reject projects, deemed to be for development and progress, will be ridiculed as uneducated and less-informed or “they do not understand”.
    And if they will argue or try to explain why they are rejecting, as a gesture to their rights to self-determination, they will be vilified or red-tagged as member or supporters the Communist Terrorist Groups (CTG).
    To better elucidate my view, we look at a co-equal government agency, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). To me, NCIP is akin to COMELEC in conducting FPIC. Like NCIP the Commssion on Elections must maintain impartiality in conducting their mandates in the elections.
    They shall never, at any circumstance, present their partiality, to any of the candidates vying for public office. Just like NCIP, the Comelec shall desist from conditioning the minds of the electorate in favoring any of the candidates. Same is true during FPIC, the NCIP must not endeavor to campaign, either for or against, a proposed project. Both NCIP and COMELEC must, at all times, advocate the strict and religious compliance or conduct of their respective policies.
    The NCIP’s impartiality is crucial in every endeavors, apart from FPIC. They must learn to unlearn whatever they have studied regarding projects, whether for or against.    
    Any actions coming from the NCIP, big or small, and either for and against, may erode the very foundation of FPIC. To do otherwise, will strip the IPs of their rights to self-determination. It would mean that the fate of the IPs’ over their ADs is already pre-determined and that their right to self-determination is just mere ink on paper.  
    Regrettably, this is the cold reality. The IPs, before the start of the FPIC are already indirectly pre-judged and prejudiced. They are expected to favorably consent to every proposed project being introduced to them. As if it would mean that the FPIC process, as a substantive right of the IPs, is being reduced as a mere procedural checklist awaiting compliance.
    And with this type of mindset, it invites corporations to cut-corners and encourages NCIP to a quick-fix while incidentally undermining the IPs’ right to Self-Determination.  
    It should be borne in mind that IPs was accorded by law to determine and define what is development or progress for them. Their definition to such, though may irate the five senses, must be respected. It is wrong to judge their definition or determination of development using the lens that is foreign to them. Your understanding of development and progress might be a means of destruction or can be construed as form of aggression to them.
    However, notwithstanding the personal views of every NCIP personnel, it should be a warning to them that non-adherence to the FPIC process and disrespect to the IPs’ right to self-determination leave them susceptible to legal charges.
    The strict adherence to the rules and prevailing laws of FPIC by NCIP personnel will serve as protection against legal cases in the future. Should there be succeeding cases filed, NCIP personnel will be judged by the courts, not because their personal views, either for or against a project, rather justice will be weighed answering the question: whether or not said NCIP personnel, in the performance of his/her duties, followed and complied with the FPIC process and respected the IPs’ right to Self-Determination as required by law.  
    Time and again we witnessed IPs filing legal charges against NCIP personnel due to the latter’s non-adherence to prevailing laws and guidelines. One famous case lodged before our courts, is the irregular conduct of the FPIC process in the infamous Gened 1 and 2 mega dams.
    IPs cry foul due to the use of seemingly forged signatures giving authority to a few to sign a memorandum of agreement and resolution of consent, while those who facilitated the FPIC process argue regularity and that complainants are influenced and anti-development.