Protecting IPs’ Rights to Ancestral Domains and Lands

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



The significant yet often marginalized and neglected Indigenous Peoples (IPs) of the Philippines continue to struggle for the protection of their rights, rights that they feel are being ignored by the government. Their sentiment is one of disappointment as they were one of the glaring omissions in President Benigno Aquino III’s State of the Nation Address last July 23, a mere two weeks before the commemoration of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples on August 9.

While the protection and fulfillment of basic human rights is one of the more widespread campaigns worldwide, there exists an equally-important yet highly-specific set of rights that must be afforded the same amount of attention—those of the IPs. Despite the fact that Republic Act (RA) No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, has been around for almost fifteen years, IPs’ rights continue to be denied and violated. The rights unique to these groups are the rights to their ancestral domains and lands.

What are ancestral domains and lands?

Ancestral domains, as defined in the IPRA, “refer to all areas generally belonging to [Indigenous Cultural Communities] ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators.”1

The law’s concept of ancestral domains, therefore, transcends physical and residential territories to include areas of spiritual, cultural and traditional practices.

Ancestral lands, which are part of ancestral domains, are defined in the same Act as lands “occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.”2

The law has a whole chapter detailing the IPs’ rights to ancestral domains, which include the right of ownership, right to develop lands and natural resources, right to stay in the territories, right in case of displacement (temporary or permanent resettlement and right to return), right to regulate entry of migrants, right to safe and clean air and water, right to claim parts of reservations (except those intended for common public welfare and service) and the right to resolve conflict. For ancestral lands, in particular, IPs have the right to transfer land/property rights to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs and the right to redeem the property in case of transfers that raise questions on consent given by IPs and transfers made with unjust considerations and/or prices.3


Claiming ancestral domains and lands

IPs in the Philippines can claim ownership in three ways: by virtue of a native title, getting formal recognition of ownership by acquiring a certificate of ancestral domain title (CADT) or certificate of ancestral land title (CALT) from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)-Ancestral Domains Office (ADO), or by securing a certificate of title by virtue of “Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496.”4

A native title, according to RA No. 8371, “refers to pre-conquest rights to land and domains, which , as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.” A CALT or CADT, on the other hand, is granted by the government and is provided for by law to those IPs who wish to obtain these titles. The IPRA, specifically Section 12, also states that IPs have the option to acquire certificates of title under the provisions of the amended Commonwealth Act No. 141. This Act follows the Torrens System of land registration5 and titles issued under this system are called Torrens titles.

The Torrens System is named after Sir Robert Richard Torrens, a member of South Australia’s first elected parliament, who introduced a bill on land registration in 1857, which was enacted as the Real Property Act in 1858.6 It was later widely-known as the Torrens System. This system of land registration, specifically in the Philippines, means that “real estate ownership may be judicially confirmed and recorded in the archives of the government.”7

Obtaining certificates of titles, whether from the NCIP-ADO or under the Torrens System, is seen as an arduous process. For IPs whose lands have been delineated prior to the enactment of the IPRA, they do not have to go through the process of filing a petition for delineation, delineation proper, submission of proof attesting to possession or occupation of the area, preparation of maps, preparation of report of investigation and other documents, notice and publication, endorsement of the ADO to the NCIP and the turnover of areas within ancestral domains managed by government agencies until the certificates are issued and registered.8  

Using the Torrens System, meanwhile, entails the following: survey of land by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)-Land Management Bureau (LMB) or survey of land done by a licensed surveyor and approved by the DENR-LMB; filing an application together with the survey and “all original muniments of titles or copies thereof;” at the Court of First Instance in the city or province where the land is located; setting the date of the initial hearing by the court; public notice of initial hearing by publication, mail and posting by the sheriff or his deputy in the city or province; presentation of proof of publication and notice; filing of opposition to application on or before initial hearing; if there is no opposition, applicant will present evidence; rendering of judgment; issuance of an order to the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue decree of registration and certificate of title; filing and entering of decree of registration in the LRA; sending of original certificate of title (OCT) and owner’s duplicate to the Registry of Deeds in the city or province where land is located; entry of OCT into the record books; and sending of notice to registered owner that his duplicate certificate is ready and will be delivered upon payment of legal fees.9

For the IPs who wish to register their ancestral lands under the Torrens System, there is a catch. Section 12 of the IPRA also states that the option to register ancestral lands under this system “shall be exercised within twenty (20) years from the approval of this Act.” The law was approved in 1997, which means that IPs only have until 2017 to avail of this option.
Recognizing the importance of IPs and the limitations accorded by the IPRA, House Bill (HB) 3747 was filed by its main author, Cagayan de Oro 2nd District Representative Rufus Rodriguez on 25 November 2010. The bill proposes to extend the deadline of ancestral land registration under the Torrens System until 2037. It also gives the NCIP five more years to take the appropriate legal action for the cancellation of officially documented titles acquired illegally. In Section 64 of the IPRA, the NCIP had to initiate legal action within two years from the approval of the Act and that the action for reconveyance shall be within ten years. HB 3747 was approved by the House of Representatives on 15 August 2011 and received by the Philippine Senate three days later. There has been no update on its status as of this writing.

The co-authors of the HB 3747 are Representatives Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr. (Lone District, Ifugao), Chairman of the House Committee on National Cultural Communities, Maximo Rodriguez (Partylist, Abante Mindanao), Maximo Dalog (Lone District, Mountain Province), Eric Singson, Jr. (2nd District, Ilocos Sur), Leopoldo Bataoil (2nd District, Pangasinan), Victorino Dennis Socrates (2nd District, Palawan), Bernardo Vergara (Lone District, Baguio City), Jeci Lapus (3rd District, Tarlac), Luzviminda Ilagan (Party List, Gabriela), Ben Evardone (Lone District, Eastern Samar), Ma. Amelita Calimbas-Villarosa (Lone District, Occidental Mindoro) and Bernadette Herrera-Dy (Party List, Bagong Henerasyon).10

Drawbacks, violations, deaths

Different events—from the practice of the Regalian Doctrine to questioning the constitutionality of the IPRA to economic development projects to deaths of both NCIP officials and IP leaders—have had negative impacts on the protection of IPs’ rights to their ancestral domains and lands.

The Regalian Doctrine or jura regalia, sometimes referred to as the Doctrine of Discovery, is “a Western legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards into the country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas [emphasis his]. The Laws of the Indies, i.e., more specifically, Law 14, Title 12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, set the policy of the Spanish Crown with respect to the Philippine Islands.”11 Then Associate Justice Reynato Puno was discussing the Regalian Doctrine as part of his opinion on a Supreme Court case in 2000 questioning the constitutionality of the IPRA. He explained that this doctrine meant that “the Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of ‘discovery’ and conquest.  Consequently, all lands became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown.”12
When the country was passed on the United States of America by virtue of the Treaty of Paris in 1898, “Spain ceded to the government of the United States all rights, interests and claims over the national territory of the Philippine Islands.”13 The Philippine Constitutions of 1935, 1973 and 1987 all embody the Regalian Doctrine, which provides that “all lands of the public domain as well as all natural resources enumerated therein, whether on public or private land, belong to the State. It is this concept of State ownership that petitioners claim is being violated by the IPRA [emphasis his].”

In formulating his separate opinion, Puno also considered the Cariño Doctrine, where the US Supreme Court (SC) granted in 1909 the petition of Mateo Cariño, an Ibaloi from Benguet Province, reversing earlier decisions of the SC of the Philippines. Cariño had first sued the Insular Government for opposing his petition to grant him the title to a parcel of land in Baguio, which was denied in 1906 by the Philippine SC.14 He filed another case, which was again rejected by the Philippine SC in 1907. The government then alleged that the land was “public property of the Government and that the same was never acquired in any manner or through any title of egresion from the state.”15 The Philippine high court had rejected his petition, because of the following findings: “that Mateo Cariño and from those whom he claims his right had not possessed and claimed as owners the lands in question since time immemorial” and “that the land in question did not belong to the petitioner, but that, on the contrary, it was the property of the Government.”16 Cariño then brought it to the US Supreme Court, where his petition was granted.

US SC Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who delivered the opinion of the court, said that “Whatever the law upon these points may be, and we mean to go no further than the necessities of decision demand, every presumption is and ought to be against the government in a case like the present. It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far back 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. Certainly in a case like this, if there is doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.”17

Considering the aforementioned as well as other cases, Puno said that the “provisions of the IPRA do not contravene with the [Philippine] Constitution” and that “ancestral domains and ancestral lands are the private property of Indigenous Peoples and do not constitute part of the land of the public domain.”18 The SC votes on the case, Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa vs. the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Secretary of Budget and Management and Chairman and Commissioners of the NCIP, questioning the constitutionality of the IPRA, were equally divided. After another deliberation, the votes remained the same. Following the Rules of Civil Procedure, the case was dismissed.19

It seems that Cariño’s victory in the US SC was only on paper as his heirs still have pending claims in the NCIP. In the 28 March 2009 issue of Sun Star Baguio, his great granddaughter, Linda Cariño, a columnist for the paper, questioned the claim of the heirs of Ikang Paus, which is part of what the Cariños are claiming. She contests the assertion of the other claimants that Ikang Paus is an heir of Bayosa Ortega, wife of Mateo and great grandmother of Linda.20 NCIP issued a CALT covering 78 hectares to the heirs of Ikang Paus in November 2009. In an open letter to then NCIP Chair Eugenio Insigne, published in the Northern Dispatch Weekly in 2010, the Cariño heirs accused the commission of “perpetrat[ing] a landgrab by awarding the Baguio Dairy Farm to fraudulent claimants, the Heirs of Ikang Paus.”21

In May of this year, Jacqueline Bernadette Cariño of the Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance and great granddaughter of Mateo Cariño, spoke on behalf of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Caucus during the 11th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, denouncing the Regalian Doctrine and saying that IPs in the country assert their rights over ancestral domains “through self-delineation and self-declaration… in accordance with customary law… in spite of the non-issuance by the government of [CALTs and CADTs], which have proven ineffective and divisive, not to mention the long tedious process [they] have to go through to prove their ownership of the land to acquire a CALT/CADT.”22

The Regalian Doctrine, as embodied in the Constitution—providing the State ownership and right to dispose of public lands—is also seen by IPs as the reason why so-called development projects such as mining, logging and the construction of dams encroached on their ancestral domains and lands and continue to disregard their rights. Any activity seen to affect IPs in any way cannot be commenced without their free and prior informed consent (FPIC). The IPRA defines it as “the consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs to be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the activity, in a language and process understandable to the community.”

IPs in the country have been asking the government to put a stop on mining, logging and/or other activities in their ancestral domains—the Agta Tribe in Sierra Madre;23 “Bagobo, Ata-Manobo, Matigsalug, Obo and Manobo in the Davao Region, B’laan and T’boli in Socsksargen, Higaonon, Kaolo, Banwaon and Talaandig in Northern Mindanao, Subanen in Zamboanga Region and Manobos in Caraga;”24  Mamanwa and Manobo tribes in Surigao del Sur;25  Manobos in Agusan del Sur;26 the Sadanga Tribe in the Mountain Province27 and the Brooke’s Point Federation of Tribal Councils in Palawan,28  among many others.

Amid calls from various IPs for the crafting of a more pro-people mining industry, Aquino signed Executive Order (EO) No. 79 last July 6, “INSTITUTIONALIZING AND IMPLEMENTING REFORMS IN THE PHILIPPINE MINING SECTOR PROVIDING POLICIES AND GUIDELINES TO ENSURE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RESPONSIBLE MINING IN THE UTILIZATION OF MINERAL RESOURCES.”29 KATRIBU Partylist, a progressive IP party, said in a statement that the new measure “fails to recognize the clamor of different sectors to nationalize the country’s mineral industry. It continues to implement the liberalized and destructive mining operations in our country allowed by the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. It fails to protect our country’s national patrimony, sovereignty and real economic development over the interest of the big foreign business.”30 Alyansa Tigil Mina, on the other hand, released its position paper on EO No. 79, declaring that it was “a long way from solving the mining issue, and is far from the meaningful reforms in the mining industry that we were expecting.”31

Perhaps one of the most grave violations is the killing of tribal leaders as well NCIP officials. South Cotabato NCIP ancestral domain provincial coordinator Tommy Dawang was gunned down in Polomolok on 20 January 2008 while NCIP Regional Office Director Rafaelito Handoc, also of South Cotabato, was shot on 5 March of the same year in Koronadal.32Decades earlier, on 24 April 1980, Macliing Dulag, Butbut tribal chief in Kalinga, was shot when his hut was strafed with bullets by members of the Philippine Army.33 Dulag was instrumental in uniting tribes in Northern Cordillera to fight the Chico Dam project in the 1970s. Alberto Pinagawa, a known anti-logging Higaonon leader, was killed with high-powered guns on the Christmas Eve of 2009.34 On 7 July 2009, Datu Liling Andresan, Mandaya tribal leader and manager of the Ancestral Domain Management Office of Monkayo in Compostela Valley, was killed.35 His successor to the post, Datu Carlito Chavez of the Manguangan tribe was also killed on 16 August 2010.36 The following year, on April 27, his successor, Bae Floreta Caya, a Mandaya, was shot dead.37 The death of these tribal leaders and NCIP officials are only a few examples and are, by no means, the only deaths related to the protection of IP rights in the last few decades.

Legislative action

HB 3747 is not the only pending bill designed to help IPs in the country.  Earlier in the 15th Congress, Abante Mindanao Partylist Representative Maximo Rodriguez, brother of HB 3747’s main author, filed HB 1635 as the principal author. “AN ACT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AFFECTED BY MINING OPERATIONS INANCESTRAL DOMAINS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7942, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ‘PHILIPPINE MINING ACT OF 1995’”38 is the bill’s long title. As stated in Rodriguez’ explanatory note, the legislative measure aims to (1) address the confusion about the requirement of getting FPIC from IPs prior to commencing mining activities, as provided by the IPRA, because FPIC is not included as a requirement in the Philippine Mining Act and (2) amend the Philippine Mining Act’s provision on the payment of royalties that are supposed to go into trust funds for the benefit of the IPs as the exact amount to be paid is not indicated explicitly.39

In the bill, Section 16 of the Philippine Mining Act will be amended to include FPIC and a certification precondition issued by the NPIC as requirements before opening ancestral lands to mining operations. Section 17 will likewise be amended to include the amount of royalty to be paid by the mining contractor, permit holder or operator—five percent of total gross output.40 HB 1635 has been pending in the House Committee on National Cultural Communities since 2 August 2010.41His co-author is his brother.42

Another bill pending in the lower house, this time at the House Committee on Natural Resources since 22 November 2011, is HB 5473.43 Its main author is Baguio Lone District Representative Bernardo Mangaoang Vergara with co-authors Benguet Lone District Representative Ronald Morales Cosalan and North Cotabato 2nd District Representative Nancy Alaan Catamco.44 The bill, similar to HB 1635, proposes the explicit statement of royalty amount in Section 17 of the Philippine Mining Act, although at a lower rate of one percent of the gross output.45

In the Senate, there is SB 3091, unifying and substituting previous bills: 109,141, 647, 1369 and 2673. It provides for the institution of a National Land Use policy and its authors are Senators Gregorio Honasan II, Alan Peter Cayetano, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Loren Legarda, Francis Escudero, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Franklin Drilon and the Senate Committee on Rules.46

While it states that “the State shall institutionalize land use and physical planning as mechanisms for identifying, determining, and evaluating appropriate land use and allocation patterns that promote and ensure… respect for and protection of the sustainable traditional resource rights of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) to their ancestral domains,”47 IPs may find Section 2, the Declaration of Policies and Principles questionable as it still embodies the practice of the Regalian Doctrine—which they have been struggling against for more than a century. Section 2 says “all lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, fora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the state. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.”48  

It may be argued that ancestral domains and lands do not constitute public land and as such, IPs should not be worried. Because of their struggles, what IPs want is not an opinion or decision or judgment but the categorical statement in legislation that ancestral domains and lands are not owned by the State and are therefore, not public land. IPs have recommended to the United Nations that “all laws and policies anchored on the Regalian Doctrine must be reviewed and reversed in order to be consistent with the [United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples] UNDRIP.”49SB 3091’s legislative status is pending second reading.50

The road ahead

IPs in the Philippines continue to struggle. The view that the NCIP is an ally because it is the “primary government agency responsible for the formulation of and implementation of policies, plans, and programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being of the ICCs/IPs and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as the rights hereto”51  seems to be almost non-existent.

UP Baguio (UPB) Cordillera Studies Center Director Alejandro Ciencia Jr. delivered a paper during the UPB commemoration of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples last August 9. In it, he says that the NCIP’s “dismal” performance can be traced to past Philippine presidents’ “ambivalence, if not indifference” toward IP concerns.52The same day, an open letter to Aquino was posted online. The signatories, the Philippines Task Force for Indigenous  Peoples’ Rights; Consortium of Christian Organizations in Rural Development; Cordillera Women’s Education Action Research Center; Episcopal Churches in the Philippines, Iglesia Filipina Independiente- Visayas-Mindanao Regional Office for Development; Regional Development Center – Katinnulong Dagiti Umili ti Amianan, Montañosa Research and Development Center; Peoples’ Development Institute; Southern Christian College – Community Education, Research and Extension Administration; Sibol ng Agham and Teknolohiya; Tebtebba Foundation, Indigenous Peoples’ International Center for Policy Research and Education and the United Church of Christ in the Philippines – Integrated Development Program for Indigenous Peoples in Southern Tagalog, bemoaned that they “have not received any response from [him] on the IP Agenda, nor has there been any significant development in favor of indigenous peoples. In fact, indigenous peoples still suffer the same problems raised in the IP agenda. There has been little government action to respond to the issues raised by indigenous peoples and advocates in 2010.”53  Two years ago, on the same date, 65 organizations of indigenous peoples and support groups from all over the country crafted an IP Agenda and submitted this to Aquino through his sister, Viel Aquino-Dy, for his “consideration and immediate action.”54

With things as they stand, IPs can only hope that their situation gets better and that their rights are fulfilled and protected by the State.

Email the author at

1  “Republic Act No. 8371.” (n.d.) Official Gazette. Retrieved from
2  Ibid.
3  Ibid.
4  Ibid.
5  “About Us.” (n.d.) Land Registration Authority. Retrieved from
6  Government of South Australia Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. (n.d.) Robert Richard Torrens. Retrieved from
7  Land Registration Authority, loc. cit.
8  Official Gazette, loc. cit.
9  Presidential Decree No. 1529. (n.d.) The LAWPhil Project.  Retrieved from
10  House Bill No. 3747. (n.d.) House of Representatives. Retrieved from;;
11  Associate Justice Reynato Puno. (2000, December 6). Separate opinion on Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR (G.R. No. 135385. December 6, 2000). Supreme Court of the Philippines. Retrieved from
12  Ibid.
13  Ibid.
14  Mateo Cariño vs The Insular Government (G.R. No. 2746. December 6, 1906). Philippine Law.Info. Retrieved from Philippine Law.Info,
15  Mateo Cariño vs The Insular Government (G.R. No. 2869. March 25, 1907). The LAWPhil Project. Retrieved from
16  Ibid.
17  Mateo Cariño vs The Insular Government (212 U.S. 449 [1909]). Retrieved from
18  Associate Justice Reynato Puno. loc. cit.
19  Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa vs. the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Secretary of Budget and Management and Chairman and Commissioners of the NCIP (G.R. No. 135385.  December 6, 2000). The Supreme Court of the Philippines. Retrieved from
20  Cariño, Linda. (2009, March 28). “The Heirs of Bayosa Ortega.” Sun Star Baguio. Retrieved from Jack Kintanar Cariño’s blog,
21  Heirs of Mateo Cariño. (2010, February 24). “Open letter to Eugenio A. Insigne.” Northern Dispatch Weekly. Retrieved from
22 Cariño, J.B. (2012, May 9). |Intervention on Agenda Item 3.” The Indigenous Peoples Issues and Resources. Retrieved from
23  Mallari, D.Jr. (2012, January 21). “‘Broken Record:’ Tribe appeals for stop to logging.” Retrieved from
24  “Mindanao tribal leaders urge stoppage of large-scale mining, dev’t projects.” (2011, April 27). Zambo Times. Retrieved from,-devt-projects.html
25  Pantaleon, A. (2010, October 16). “Logging firm’s IFMA in Surigao Sur ‘defective and erroneous.’” MindaNews. Retrieved from
26  Solmerin, F. (2012, July 2). “Manobo land under threat from loggers.” Manila Standard Today. Retrieved from
27  Allad-iw, A. (2011, July 17). “Sadanga tribe opposes mine in communal forest.” Northern Dispatch Weekly. Retrieved from
28  “Bantay Kalikasan lacks environment permits—NCIP.” (2012, June 22). The Daily Tribune. Retrieved from
29  Executive Order No. 79, s. 2012. (n.d.) Official Gazette. Retrieved from
30  “New Mining EO Palliative-KATRIBU.” (2012, July 9). KATRIBU. Retrieved from
31  “ATM Position on Executive Order 79 s. 2012.” (2012, August 3). Alyansa Tigil Mina. Retrieved from
32  Goodland, R. and Wicks, C. (2008). Philippines: Mining or Food? Working Group on Mining in the Philippines. London.
33  Abella, J. (2010, April 24). “Indigenous people remember Macliing Dulag’s martyrdom.” Retrieved from
34  Rebuta, C.C. (2009, December 27). “Cry for justice for the death of anti–logging leader.” Inside Mindanao. Retrieved from
35  Tupas, J. (2011, May 10). “Davao region tribal leaders denounce killings.” Retrieved from
36  Ibid.
37  Ibid.
38  House Bill No. 1635. (n.d.) House of Representatives. Retrieved from;;
39  House Bill No. 1635. (n.d.) House of Representatives. Retrieved from
40  Ibid.
41  House Bill No. 1635. (n.d.) House of Representatives. Retrieved from
42  Ibid.
43  House Bill No. 5473. (n.d.) House of Representatives. Retrieved from;
44  Ibid.
45  House Bill No. 5473. (n.d.) House of Representatives. Retrieved from
46  Senate Bill No. 3091. (n.d.) Senate of the Philippines. Retrieved from!.pdf
47  Ibid.
48  Ibid.
49  Cariño, Jacqueline Bernadette. loc. cit.
50  Senate Bill No. 3091. (n.d.) Senate of the Philippines. Retrieved from
51  Republic Act No. 8371. loc. cit.
52  Ciencia, Alejandro Jr. (2012, August 22).“Governance Issues and the NCIP.” The Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links. Retrieved from
53  “Open Letter to President Benigno Aquino III.” (2012, August 9). The Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links. Retrieved from
54  Ibid.