DAVAO CITY, Philippines—Indigenous leaders and legal advocates warned that revised government rules on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) could weaken Indigenous Peoples’ right to reject projects affecting their ancestral domains.
The primary issues seen in the new version of the FPIC approved on May 1, 2026 that replaced the 2012 framework are weakened consent standards, shortened deliberation timelines, altered community representation, inadequate oversight mechanisms and questions about consultations in the drafting of the revisions particularly affected communities.
The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) held consultations on the draft in Nov. 2025.
Bureaucratic gaps
Lawyer Ryan Jay Roset, senior legal fellow at the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, challenged provisions allowing lighter assessment for certain projects and exemptions from FPIC requirements.
“From the name itself, the requirement is clear. First, it should be free. Second, it should be prior, before the project starts. Informed, the communities should know what the projects are entering into. That goes without saying that it should be in languages they can understand,” Roset said in Filipino.
He said technical project documents, including environmental impact assessments, must be explained in languages communities comprehend because these involved scientific language and difficult complex data.
“Even I, when faced with—for example—an environmental impact assessment, I still have to double-check the data,” Roset said.
Roset warned that Section 59 of the revised framework could create “consent by bureaucratic default” if the NCIP fails to act on an FPIC report, allowing projects to proceed while fraud or misrepresentation complaints remain unresolved.
NCIP staffing constraints
Engineer Licelle Pineda, engineer III and FPIC focal person at NCIP Region XI, acknowledged systemic bottlenecks.
“The NCIP receives a lot of applications. The agency’s problem is it is heavily undermanned,” Pineda said in Cebuano.
She noted some applications require up to three years to process, partly because proponents fail to complete requirements. She added that some businesses enter ancestral domains before obtaining FPIC.
“The new guidelines cannot be the solution to the NCIP being undermanned; rather, the answer lies in our reorganization—expanding the office’s components and internal divisions, increasing manpower in our provincial offices and community service centers, and even adding more community service centers,” Pineda said.
She maintained communities retain approximately 60 days to deliberate and can decline projects. “If they are not satisfied with the proponent’s explanation, they have the option to say no to the project,” she said.
However, she confirmed that proponents now handle tasks previously managed by NCIP, including organizing community assemblies and preparing work and financial plans. NCIP teams continue attending activities, monitoring participation, and verifying compliance.
Disregard for customary decision-making
Datu Oscar Mansabid Sarahan, chair of the Matigsalug-Manobo Tribal People Council of Elders Davao Inc., said accelerated timelines conflict with traditional consultation processes.
“In our community, the FPIC process is part of our lives. It is part of our culture,” Sarahan said in Cebuano.
He described how the Matigsalug observe the stars, perform rituals, and interpret signs from nature before cultivating their fields. “Before, we had processes that could take three years. Now, it only takes a few months,” he said. “If you think about our customs, just like our rituals when farming, we still have to ask permission through prayer and dreams. It cannot be done swiftly.”
Sarahan also criticized changes to consenting assembly composition, arguing that women, children, youth, and elders must participate in decisions affecting ancestral territories.
“One of our concerns in the 2026 FPIC guidelines is the change of the composition of the consenting assembly. Before, everyone was included—women, children, youth, and elderly,” he said.
He flagged risks of financial inducements—including money, employment offers, and allowances—influencing leadership, alongside language barriers preventing genuine understanding of agreements. He further noted insufficient monitoring of promised benefits after project commencement.
Whose development?
Prencess Wil Gumotao, a student from the Tagakaulo community, questioned whether the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) safeguards communities in practice or functions primarily as corporate administrative compliance.
“As a student, upon thinking, I can’t help but ask: is the spirit of the IPRA Law truly protected in reality, or has it merely become an administrative checklist for corporations?” Gumotao said.
She connected self-determination to Indigenous identity, including the right to collectively identify as “Lumad,” and highlighted threats to free consent from red-tagging.
“Because of issues of red-tagging, how can we say we are free to consent when we are being accused and threatened?” she said.
Gumotao also raised concerns about the proposed Pax Silica initiative and semiconductor hub, noting arguments that lacking a formal Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) could permit land appropriation. She clarified that ancestral domains encompass resources within them, not merely surface territory.
Lawyer Romeo Cabarde Jr., director of the Ateneo de Davao University Ateneo Public Interest and Legal Advocacy Center (APILA), questioned the participation of Indigenous communities in developing the revised guidelines.
He said Mandaya residents in Barangay Macambol, Davao Oriental, and Obo-Manobo residents in Tambobong told him they had not participated in consultations.
“Is the formulation of the FPIC guidelines truly participatory and does it involve the IP communities? If not, then I can say these new guidelines are flawed in their process,” Cabarde said.
He argued that development should expand communities’ decision-making capacity rather than constrain their autonomy.
“The community should not be the one adjusting. In fact, project proponents must be the ones adjusting because they have to give time to follow the process in the community,” he said.
Concerns surfaced during an Oct. 26 forum at Ateneo de Davao University examining the NCIP’s 2026 revised guidelines.
Rosalinda Tomas, chair of the university’s Anthropology Department, emphasized that FPIC must function as an enforceable right rather than a procedural formality.
“FPIC is a substantive right, not a checkbox. It is the community’s right to decide what happens within ancestral domains… no project proponent or government agency may override, dilute, or bypass that collective will.”
She stressed that rejection authority must carry binding weight, particularly given mining, energy, infrastructure, and resource extraction impacts extending decades.
“If a community rejects a project, that choice must be absolute, final, and binding,” Tomas said.
She said there is a need to critically scrutinize any new framework that threatens to erode those hard-won protections. GCA (davaotoday.com)
