Baguio ‘IPMR’s selection’ hit; trial court urged to settle cases

BAGUIO CITY – The Regional Trial Court here was urged to settle cases related to the issue of seating an “indigenous peoples mandatory representative”  in the city council.
    This, as Mayor Benjamin Magalong administered oath of office to an “IPMR” which was questioned by lawyers saying the so-called IPMR cannot sit as member of the Sangguniang Panglunsod as courts have not yet decided on court cases of the previous IPMR who was elected earlier.
    The Gacayan Agmata Ruiz and Associates law offices, counsel of Roger D. Sinot, who was elected IPMR in 2016 urged the RTC to resolve pending cases on the matter “in the interest of justice.” 
    In pleading filed with the Baguio RTC Jan. 31, the lawyers said the Office of the Solicitor General had filed its answer to the court.
    “The selection of Roger Sinot Sr. as IPMR of Baguio was regular and valid, as it complied with requirements provided under the law,” the Solicitor General said.
    “There is no requirement for a particular ICC/IP (indigenous cultural community sector/indigenous people’s sector) in order to be entitled to representation in the local legislative council. The selection of private respondent Roger Sinot Sr. as IPMR was based on Section 16 of Republic Act No. 8371 and not on Republic Act 7610,” the SolGen said.  
    “Issuance of (TRO) temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction of Roger Sinot Sr. as IPMR representative was not warranted,” Sinot’s lawyers said.

Cases and counter-cases were filed on the matter which resulted to dismissal from office of then National Commission on Indigenous People’s Cordillera regional director lawyer Roland Calde by the Office of Ombudsman for opposing the assumption of Sinot as IPMR.   

Despite this, Sinot was not allowed under the administration of then Mayor Mauricio Domogan to sit as IPMR up to the present administration under Mayor Magalong.

Recently, NCIP chairman Capuyan reportedly ordered the creation of an IP group to select another IPMR despite court cases related to Sinot as IPMR.

Recently, the Onjon ni Ivadoy composed of a handful of Baguio Ibalois selected Maximo Hilario Edwin Jr. as IPMR of the City of Baguio.

The City Council, on Feb. 9 concurred with the selection of Edwin Jr. as IPMR. Edwin Jr. is the concurrent president of Onjon ni Ivadoy.

A source at the city council said Edwin Jr. will chair the City Council’s committee on indigenous peoples and indigenous cultural communities which was temporarily chaired by Vice Mayor Faustino Olowan which was created in 2022. 

Last Monday, Edwin Jr. reportedly joined the City Council during their regular session as “observer” until “matters related to his being an “IPMR” were “threshed out.”

Prior to the city council’s “concurrence,” lawyer Atanacio Addog, regional NCIP director issued last Feb. 2 a certificate affirming the selection of Edwin Jr. as IP representative to the Baguio City Council saying this was pursuant to Section 16 of Republic Act No. 8371, known as Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997.

Edwin Jr. took his oath of office before Mayor Benjamin Magalong last Feb. 3. 

Councilor Betty Lourdes Tabanda told Edwin Jr. to “take a look at all other indigenous groups in the City of Baguio.”

This, despite earlier certifications issued by the regional NCIP and Dept. of Interior and Local Government posing no objection to assumption of Sinot as Baguio IPMR. 

Sinot Jr. said if Edwin Jr. will assume as IPMR, this was questionable considering cases related to the matter have not yet been settled by the courts with finality.

He said those involved in the assumption of Edwin Jr. as IPMR were liable for contempt of court. – Alfred Dizon  

Read more...

FPIC etiquette on IKSP

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S CONCERNS

Rocky Ngalob

For the benefit of the private and government researchers, members of the academe, students and artists, here is a brief discussion on the policies and regulations governing documentation and utilization of Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) and Customary Laws. 

While it is self-explanatory, IKSP is defined by a prevailing National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Administrative Order No. 1 series of 2012 as; “…systems, institutions, mechanisms, and technologies comprising a unique body of knowledge evolved through time that embody patterns of relationships between and among peoples and between peoples, their lands and resource environment, including such spheres of relationships which may include social, political, cultural, economic, religious spheres, and which are the direct outcome of the indigenous peoples, responses to certain needs consisting of adaptive mechanisms which have allowed indigenous peoples to survive and thrive within their given socio-cultural and biophysical conditions.”

If these IKSPs entail documentation and/or utilization of the same other than what it is intended purpose, may it be, for public consumption and for commerce, it requires Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). The requirement of FPIC is anchored on the basis of social justice wherein IPs, as the owners of IKSP, are entitled to be first informed of the documentation and utilization of their property (IKSP), and to give consent on whether to agree and/or reject the intended purpose of the IKSP.         

IPs are the collective owners of IKSP

We should look at IKSP as the collective property of the IPs. In fact, this collective ownership of the IKSP by the IPs was underscored in the operating principles of NCIP AO 1 S 2012. It mentioned that the author, composer, inventor, writer, choreographer, arranger, lyricist, owner, first user, or preacher is not one individual but all the members of the community who belong to the past, present and future generations.

If IKSP is collective ownership, the better part of prudence is to consult the IPs in their collective person as single unit.

Yes, this is a little bit tedious and burdensome wherein it presupposes the conduct of consultations involving the entirety of IPs dwelling inside an Ancestral Domain. But of course this is the least of one’s concern if the same had a deeper appreciation of the wisdom behind the IP culture of collective ownership.

This is grounded on the recognition that IKSPs of the IPs exist till this day because it is they [IPs], in their collective efforts, who have protected and nurtured the same despite centuries of subjugation. 

In fact, the very reason it is called IKSP is mainly because customs, knowledge, traditions which were being enjoyed and practiced during the pre-conquest era of the Philippines were warded off collectively by the IPs, from the drastic changes from the popular and dominant culture introduced by our colonizers. 

With that in mind, due FPIC is needed even if the one who will be documenting and utilizing the IKSP belongs or traces his/her roots to the IPs owning the same. Why? Well, because as discussed earlier, IKSPs are collectively owned. He/She, as a single individual, is just a part of the whole IKSP ownership.

Tedious and costly

For everybody’s information, FPIC process being facilitated by the NCIP, has no budget allocation from the national government. This is why all expenses incidental to the conduct of the FPIC process are all being shouldered by the researcher. In effect, it is the researcher who will be paying for the food and transportation of the IP community elders/leaders and members who will attend meetings, conferences and other activities for the satisfaction of the FPIC. All other expenses incidental to the FPIC process will likewise be borne to the researcher.

The only payment that will be paid to NCIP is the filing fee of 500 pesos which will be directly transmitted to the National Treasury.

On the curious case of Whang-od relative to New ErIt is without any shade of doubt that the Kalinga Battok (Wha’tok) is classified as IKSP. Therefore, any move for its utilization beyond its traditional purpose; say for example, documentation, and/or appropriation for commerce, requires FPIC.

With that being said, one must first determine the owner of the IKSP. It is the owner who will be giving consent thereof. As a general rule, ownership of IKSPs is lodged to the Community wherein as a collective body, they will decide whether or not they would allow or reject the utilization of the IKSP by a party for purposes outside its traditional intent.

Whang-od, as a single individual, cannot give consent in favor to another party for the utilization of IKSP Battok considering that most of the designs therein are traditional. It is a different story however if those designs were originally conceptualized and/or crafted by her, wherein Whang-od may enjoy and hold ownership thereof. A better illustration of this is the Cordillera Weaving industry.

Narda’s Weaving cannot be compelled to undertake FPIC for the purpose of securing consent from the community. This because, Narda’s Weaving designs were originally conceptualized and crafted by Narda herself.

Narda’s Weaving acquired inspiration from the traditional Cordillera designs but made a different design which is original to Narda’s Weaving. 

Read more...