DAVAO CITY, Philippines—Twenty-nine years after the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act took effect, Indigenous communities continue to report displacement, land encroachment and militarization — and new consent guidelines issued by the government agency tasked with defending their rights are drawing fresh warnings.
Kat Dalon, an Obo Manobo and vice chairperson of the Sabokahan Unity of Lumad Women, said the continued entry of mining operations, plantations and dams into ancestral territories shows the gap between the law’s promise and the realities Indigenous communities face.
Dalon accused the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the agency mandated to protect Indigenous rights, of facilitating the entry of local and foreign investors into ancestral territories, and criticized the commission for revising the framework for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) without sufficient consultation.
“Changes that could pressure or manipulate communities into accepting projects,” Dalon told Davao Today in Cebuano.
READ: Indigenous groups wary of weakened protections in new FPIC guidelines
New FPIC rules raise questions
The Ateneo Public Interest and Legal Advocacy (APILA) Center of Ateneo de Davao University raised concerns over NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2026, which establishes the new FPIC guidelines.
“FPIC should not be treated merely as a set of administrative steps to be completed before a project proceeds,” APILA said in a statement titled “The Right to Decide Must Not Be Reduced to a Procedural Requirement: Questions on the 2026 FPIC Guidelines.”
“It is a right that protects Indigenous Peoples’ freedom to determine their own development priorities and decide whether a proposed project affecting their ancestral domains should be allowed.”
APILA director Romeo Cabarde Jr. questioned whether the revised procedures prioritize administrative efficiency over meaningful community decision-making.
The center flagged the classification of projects into categories A, B and C, saying project size, funding source or commercial character may not reflect a project’s cultural, environmental and social effects; the fixed timelines for community deliberations, which may not accommodate customary decision-making processes; and Section 58, under which a Certification Precondition may issue when administrative action is not taken within its timeframe after a complete FPIC report.
APILA stressed that the provision does not equate community silence with consent, but said it raises the question of whether administrative inaction could result in certification without sufficient verification that consent was genuinely obtained.
It called on the NCIP to clarify classification and exemption criteria, strengthen verification of community authorization, improve access to independent legal and technical assistance and provide interim remedies when serious violations are alleged.
NCIP outlines safeguards
The NCIP published Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2026, “The 2026 Guidelines on Free and Prior Informed Consent and Related Processes,” on its official page.
The commission also maintains a dedicated FPIC page where the guidelines are available.
In an Oct. 15 release on its Mindanao orientation in Kidapawan City, the commission said the activity prepared field personnel for the rollout, covering project classification, community decision-making, monitoring and dispute resolution.
The commission said its FPIC teams are responsible for protecting Indigenous Peoples from coercion and undue influence, ensuring full disclosure and meaningful participation, respecting customary laws and community decision-making authority, and verifying documentation.
It emphasized that signing attendance sheets or receiving food and travel assistance does not mean a community has given consent.
“If a community decides to say ‘no’ and withholds consent, that decision must be respected under their right to self-determination,” the agency said.
The NCIP added that its monitoring does not end with the issuance of a Certification Precondition: project proponents remain subject to complaints throughout a project’s life, with violations potentially leading to suspension or cancellation.
The release did not directly address APILA’s specific concerns.
IPRA remains an important legal tool
Despite flawed implementation, legal advocates said IPRA remains a primary domestic framework for protecting Indigenous rights, alongside the 1987 Constitution.
“Despite the issues surrounding its implementation, the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act remains an important legal tool for protection and promotion of Indigenous peoples’ rights throughout the country,” said Raymond Marvic Baguilat, senior lecturer at the University of the Philippines College of Law and head legal officer of the UP Law Center Institute of Human Rights.
Baguilat noted, however, that ancestral domain title applications languish for decades, FPIC mechanisms remain largely state-driven despite the law’s recognition of customary laws, and allegations of corruption persist within the NCIP at regional and provincial levels.
Cabarde said Indigenous Peoples must be recognized as decision-makers rather than obstacles to development, and that the central question is whether a community can reject a project affecting its ancestral domain — and have that decision respected.
Call for accountability after 29 years
In a statement marking the law’s 29th anniversary, Katribu Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas accused the NCIP of facilitating projects that threaten ancestral domains, cited its participation in the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict as a threat to Indigenous rights defenders, and criticized its 2021 resolution discouraging the use of “Lumad.”
The group called for accountability, the abolition of the NCIP and the repeal of IPRA.
READ: ’We are Manobo, we are Lumad’
Signed into law on Oct. 29, 1997, Republic Act No. 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997, recognizes Indigenous Peoples’ rights to ancestral domains, self- governance, cultural integrity and social justice.
Twenty-nine years later, communities and legal advocates say the question remains whether those rights can be meaningfully exercised and protected on the ground. (davaotoday.com)
