NCIP-Benguet reviving dying IKSP through Tapey making

 IP CONCERNS

Rocky Ngalob

ATOK, Benguet -- National Commission on Indigenous Peoples – Benguet Provincial Office awarded rice wine making equipment to the indigenous cultural communities / indigenous peoples [ICCs/IPs] of Barangay Naguey, an heirloom rice producing community, within the Atok ancestral domain [AD] as instructional materials to be used by the Naguey Rural Improvement Club [NRIC] in teaching and passing-on the age-old traditional process of making ‘tapey.’
    “More than just your typical livelihood program to help ease the financial constraints of the IP communities, these set of tools for “Tapey” making, were seen as NCIP-Benguet’s intervention to the cultural drain of the IP Youth brought by modernization and commerce”, according to NCIP community affairs officer Genalyn Badival.
    As project implementor, she said she recognizes that while the tools may not substantially provide income, she is optimistic that with this simple gesture, it will provide an avenue for the IP community for an inter-generational exchange of indigenous knowledge systems and practices [IKSP] with the IP Youth.
    Badival who hails from Naguey and an IP youth herself, said that the IKSP or traditional process makes the ‘tapey’ exceptional.
    “By equipping the IP community with these tools, we are indirectly providing an opportunity and channel for the IPs’ traditional ‘tapey’ making to be passed on. We wish to unlock that repository of knowledge sealed within the minds of our elders by providing these equipment as reasons for them to impart how they are used in the ‘tapey’ making process to the next generation.We also want to revive that distinctive taste which separates ‘tapey’ with ordinary wines”, said Badival.
She added this intends to help the IPs’ IKSP alive and relevant.
    “Apart from blood, the IKSP, alongside the recognition and respect to the same, is a vital ingredient that makes us IPs. Absent our recognition and familiarity to our IKSP strips us of our identity as an IP. And just like ‘tapey,’ absent any semblance of the aged-old customary processing honed by centuries of experience, reduces the quality and taste which distinguishes ‘tapey’ from the rest of the rice wines.”
    According to wine aficionados, locally produced ‘Tapey’, through the years, lost its distinctive taste.
    A rare taste, they said, is easily identifiable only in genuine ‘tapey’.
    Such taste which can only be experienced in rice wines served inside IP homes and weddings in the provinces. This distinctive taste, or as they call it “the IP touch”, makes ‘tapey’ unique.
    Even with locally produced wines sold in the market coming from the different provinces, consumers can easily single-out a genuine ‘Tapey’ by mere whiff of its aroma.
    This unique distinction of ‘Tapey’ may only be replicated if the producers of the same followed the aged-old process of traditional fermentation all the way to its storage using clay jars locally dubbed as the ‘gusi’.
    Apart from weddings, according to one elder, ‘tapey’ serves as one of the key ingredients during ritual ceremonies. Never had the IPs viewed before that the ‘Tapey’ will be subject for commerce.
    The purpose of ‘tapey’ then was for self-consumption. Only recently, that we witnessed a shift on the purpose of the ‘tapey’ -- from a household item for self-consumption and integral to the community’s daily life, towards a product now susceptible for appropriation and commerce.
    It is this distinctive taste of ‘tapey’ that invited patrons outside the IPs’ boarders, which in turn, opened the concept mass production. Resultantly, the IP community unconsciously abandoned the tedious and conventional ‘tapey’ making reducing its distinctive taste.
    “Those who will be benefited from this awarding/turn-over, aside fromNRIC, are the IP community members, especially the IP youth, who will be extracting knowledge on traditional ‘tapey’ making from their respective culture bearers. Other than NCIP-Benguet, the project and activity was likewise a collective effort of NCIP Atok Community Service Center and all of its staff,” Badival said.
    The awarding of the ‘tapey’ making tools is part of the NCIP-Benguet’s celebration for the August 9 International Day of World’s Indigenous Peoples.

 

IP CONCERNS 

Rocky Ngalob

After defeating Lepanto, what’s next for Mankayan?

The recent decisions of Supreme Court in Cosalan versus Lepanto and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples versus Lepanto is a vivid manifestation that our judicial system works.
    These latest Supreme Court rulings placed the IPs of Mankayan on the Philippine map worthy of emulation from the rest of the IPs. The IPs of Mankayan’s unpopular opinion before is now the majority battle cry of the greater IP majority.
    On retrospect, it can be recalled sometime 2014, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company sought  renewal of its Mining Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA). During this time, Lepanto, who has mined and enjoyed the rich natural bounty of mineral resources within the Ancestral Domain (AD) of Mankayan town in Benguet for more than two decades, was required to undergo the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) process before its MPSA will be renewed. Further, parallel to the application for renewal for its MPSA, Lepanto alongside one partner corporation have a pending FPIC process for a separate Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) also within Mankayan. The latter FTAA application however was met with numerous resentments from the IPs who resorted to mass actions.
    Due to these resentments and perhaps fearing that its MPSA might be given the same treatment, Lepanto took the cuddles of the courts and choose to carry-on their quest for renewal by stretching the technicalities of our laws. Boy, it worked-out for Lepanto because in 2015, the exact year of the supposed expiration of its MPSA, the company was able to secure a “writ of preliminary injunction” from the court which barred NCIP and other government agencies from disturbing the mining operations of Lepanto.
    Also, in that same year, Lepanto was able to secure an arbitral award which downplayed the requirement of FPIC, seemingly extending or automatically renewing the MPSA for another 25 years.
    Thereafter, Lepanto held on to this award and to the issuance of the injunction of the court. They simply went on with its operation within Mankayan while the IPs, the steward-owners of the AD and its mineral resources, were reduced as mere spectators, helplessly staring at their resources get exploited by Lepanto within their own backyard.
    This horrid scenario went on for eight long years until June 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned its subordinate courts and set aside the arbitral award compelling to Lepanto to submit itself to FPIC. Another Supreme Court ruling followed suit on March 2023, this time lifting the injunction against government agencies from disturbing the mining operations of Lepanto.
    The two separate Supreme Court ruling set a precedent which now forms parts of the laws of land in matters concerning FPIC relative to existing and operating Companies within the IPs’ ADs.
    With this, companies can no longer dispense FPIC by seeking refuge on the argument that they have been existing and operating prior the enactment of IPRA on 1997. Needless to state, a commissioner or a gasoline station owner can no longer deceive the IPs forcing them to waive their due right to FPIC process in favor of a renewal of MPSA for a certain cement corporation.
    We deduce that this victory was the fruit of consistent collective actions of the IPs of Mankayan.
    Their unwavering spirit to pursue their rights as accorded within IPRA, notwithstanding how unpopular they may be before, served as the vital ingredient in their crusade.
    They may have been classified before as subversives for voicing out their sentiments via megaphones and painted placards, but look at them now. Sure, they may have been at the receiving end of countless ridicule and harassments, yet who would’ve thought that the price of such, was much sweeter and far valuable than all of ores within their lands.
These IPs should now hold their chins high. And by all means, let them shout, “We told you so!”
    Interestingly, at present, there are three big mining companies operating within Benguet whose MPSAs are bound to expire on 2025.
    The renewal of their MPSAs and the extension of their mining operations now rest in the hands of the IP host communities whether the latter, through the FPIC process, will consent to such. For a mining company who had fairly treated its IP host community as its co-equal partner in the past 25 years of operation, renewal of its MPSA will
perhaps be easy.

However, the same cannot be said for an abusive and exploitive mining company. Surely, our IPs will seize this opportunity to confront mining companies who have aggrieved them.

With the way things are, considering the past contributions of mining to our economy and environment, I think we all have an inkling on how the IPs of Benguet will dispose of their decision comes the renewal application of these three big mining companies on 2025.

I’m imagining these mining companies praying to the heavens for an amnesia to wipe clean the memories of our IPs in the past 25 years.

Reality dictates that a landlady can easily, and has all the reasons, to boot-out an abusive tenant right after the expiration of the lease.

Like the IPs, the landlady has the freedom to either look for other tenants or choose to live and develop the said property for the enjoyment of her future offspring.

It’s now year 2023, and none from these three big companies unilaterally attempted to pursue the FPIC for the renewal of their MPSAs prior to the imminent expiration on 2025.

I’m not jumping the gun here. Yes, the FPIC process this early might still be considered premature. But isn’t it a common etiquette for all of us to settle our bills days before its due?

Because if we don’t, we risk disconnection of our internet, electricity and water supply.

I just hope the Mining and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) will stop the operations of mining companies when their MPSAs reached its expiration. If no, the MGBs inaction, will again be exploited by mining companies as a scheme to drag the FPIC process.

While IPs wait for that faithful day, expect numerous maneuverings from these mining companies prior to the expiration of their MPSAs. I foresee that they will explore and exploit every opportunity for them to be able to control the eventual FPIC of the IP Communities.

They might pool funds to ensure that their candidates will secure a seat this coming barangay elections. Others may even indirectly push for a re-organization or re-election of the different Ancestral

Domain Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPO), while the rest may dip their fingers in the selection of the different Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative IPMRs.

The road was opened by the Mankayan IPs’ vigilance, which in turn, was cemented by the two Supreme Court rulings. Hence, no reasons for us to be apathetic.

Parallel to the collective actions of the Mankayan IPs, were legal battles fought by their own fellow IP lawyers worth mentioning, from attorneys Ronald Cosalan (then Benguet Congressman), Faustino Olowan (now Baguio City Vice Mayor) to the ragtag duo of Arthur Herman and Jeanete Florita of the NCIP.

 

 

 

Read more...

FPIC is a must even for existing projects

IP Concerns

Rocky Ngalob

With due respect to National Commission on Indigenous Peoples [NCIP] Commissioner Gaspar A Cayat, more than just an agent of NCIP, but as a member of indigenous peoples [IPs], I must dissent on erroneous claims that rights to free, prior and informed consent [FPIC] is no longer applicable when a project existed and operated before enactment of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act [IPRA] of 1997.
    A video taken last 2021 has recently surfaced with Commissioner Cayat conducting an information education campaign [IEC] activity with IPs of Sison Pangasinan.
    Said video showed the Commissioner arguing that IPs’ right to FPIC does not apply to National Cement Corporation [NCC] for the reason the company had operated and existed before IPRA.
    In the video, Commissioner Cayat indirectly discouraged the IPs of Sison from asserting their due rights to FPIC by suggesting direct negotiation for their royalty monetary shares. It was later found out that the video was publicly posted on the official social media page of the Commissioner by his Executive Secretary. Interestingly, just last month, a case was filed against Commissioner Cayat for his unlawful issuance of an unnumbered Certificate on Non-Overlap [CNO] absolving NCC of mandatory requirement of FPIC and Certification Precondition for reasons only known to the Commissioner.  
    The pronouncement of the Commissioner is wrong and must be corrected. FPIC as a matter of public policy, must not be dispensed with. Let it be known that the IPs' rights to FPIC apply to projects that have existed and have continuously operated, like mining, within Ancestral Lands and Domains, even before the enactment of IPRA.
    The claim of the Commissioner is frowned upon by the landmark legislation IPRA and goes contrary to its noble spirit. Companies who have enjoyed and exploited IPs’ resources within Ancestral Lands and Domains, without due consent, are just one of many injustices which IPRA intends to cure. Thus, dispensing FPIC is an antithesis of IPRA. 
Condoning a rapist 
Pardon for using the word ‘rape’ in elucidating what IPRA is expected to correct and protect. If the statement of the Commissioner was left tolerated, such erroneous claims would be construed as forcing our IPs to sleep with their rapist. More so, conditioning the minds of our IPs to yield straight away to negotiation for royalty shares and/or monetary compensation as their sole and only option, rather than asking first for their prior consent, is no different from persuading our IPs to marry their rapist just so they can claim child support for the unwanted offspring. Simply put, IPRA, as a curative law, is akin to a vaccine made not only to cure but to prevent further effects of the disease brought by historical injustices against our IPs.              
    I join the elder in the video who refuted the claims of the Commissioner. The elder is correct in underscoring that there shall be no renewals of Mineral Production Sharing Agreements [MPSAs] without the consummation of the FPIC and the issuance of the Certification Precondition [CP].
    Obviously, the elder had been reading IPRA and is quite aware of its provisions. I’m just surprised that of all people, the NCIP Commissioner, as a member of the highest policy-making body of NCIP, was seemingly not aware of such. It puts a smile on my face that there are still elders who are willing, without fear of reprisals, to debate with high-ranking officials. However, these types of elders are becoming less and less occurring. I just hope no one throws the mold.
FPIC and the CP is a condition ;Sine qua non’  
Let it be known, rooted in no less than the Philippine Constitution, as well as being clear, categorically, and positively reflected in IPRA, the existence and mandate of the invoked public ensuring the protection of the rights of the ICCs/IPs to their Ancestral Domains cannot be undermined, worse disregarded. It should be borne in mind that IPRA, as a noble piece of legislation, was crafted to address the centuries-old neglect of the Philippines by the ICCs/IPs. Previous Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) all the way to the prevailing FPIC guidelines under NCIP Administrative Order 3 S 2012 outlines that, “No concession, license, permit or lease, production-sharing agreement, or other undertakings affecting ancestral domains shall be granted or renewed without going through the [FPIC process].”
    Verily, the Certification Precondition, which includes obtaining FPIC from the affected indigenous peoples, must be strictly complied with before such agreements, like the MPSA, may be renewed. If corporations are prohibited to circumvent this requirement on a mistaken notion that they still have vested rights by virtue that their facilities have existed and operated prior to the enactment of IPRA, more should the Commissioner or any agent of NCIP, tasked to uphold mandatory nature of FPIC, must sustain the same. 
Quo vadis Mr. Commissioner?
Was the claim of the Commissioner for waving the FPIC for existing and operating companies the official stance of the Commission? I think not and from the immortal words of the Commissioner on another video spread throughout social media, “that is a misnomer”. 
    It can be recalled that the NCIP Commission En Banc [CEB], a collegial body where ironically Commissioner Cayat is a part of, issued earlier “CEB Resolution 08-018-2021”. Said instrument declared the infamous Memorandum Order No. 148, “null and void ab initio for being used contrary to law, IPRA and its Guidelines, and for being contrary to public policy and public morals' '. This Memorandum Order No. 148 was quite famous then for the IPs of Itogon and Bokod. This Memorandum Order 148 was the exact tool used by the corporation operating the Ambuclao and Binga dams to elude the mandatory FPIC process. Fortunately, after a series of lobbying by NCIP field personnel, the 8^th Commission struck it down and compelled the company operating the dams to comply with the mandatory FPIC.   
    Given this clear stance of the 8^th Commission on existing and operating projects within the Ancestral Lands and Domains, it would seem Commissioner Cayat was either deliberately ignoring his office’s duties and responsibilities, or he was caught via video shooting from the hip. The lack of stutter in n his speech and the overwhelming confidence in the tone of his voice says the former.   
    Lastly, the Supreme Court ruled last year underscoring the strict observance of the mandatory prior consummation of the FPIC and CP before an MPSA can be renewed.
Said ruling now dubbed as Cosalan VS Lepanto, underscored that all mining companies should comply first with     FPIC and its CP otherwise the protection that the Constitution and IPRA seek to afford our ICCs/IPs would be pointless. Said case gave a clear-cut framework that the mandatory requirement of FPIC, as a matter of public policy, cannot and shall not be dispensed with and that renewal of MPSAs covering Ancestral Domains of the IPs is not automatic.
    This ruling which now forms parts of the laws of the land was welcomed and celebrated by the IPs/ICCs of Mankayan not only as a victory for their own Ancestral Domain but for the entire populace of IPs including their brothers and sisters in Sison Pangasinan.  
    The Commissioner, while clothed with authority as an agent of NCIP, opinion or not, shot himself in the foot when he uttered the non-applicability of FPIC for existing projects. Alas, such pronouncement is an abomination inside the agency NCIP created by IPRA.

Read more...