Case Study - Philippines Metagora Pilot Project CHAPTER 1: CONCEPTUALISATION OF THE PROJECT (page 3)
1.2.2 The Conceptual Framework
To serve as a guide in formulating the project and survey design that would enable the attainment of the project's objectives, a conceptual framework, generated from a literature review, was designed.
The survey’s conceptual framework is rights-based. A rights-based approach (RBA) is a mainstreaming process that links human rights to development. As such, RBA integrates the norms, standards and principles of the international human rights system into the plans, policies and processes of development. The Philippine State is a party to many international human rights instruments of the United Nations and its organs, such as the ILO, UNESCO, FAO, and WHO. Many of these instruments are treaties with which the Philippines, as a state party, is obliged to comply.
Indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) and indigenous peoples (IPs) have long been one of the vulnerable, if not neglected, sectors in Philippine society. State policy towards them has evolved from that of segregation to assimilation and integration, and currently to that of recognition and preservation. It was to address the marginalisation of the ICCs/IPs that the 10th Congress of the Philippines passed and approved Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (Sedfrey Candelaria, 2002).
As human beings, indigenous peoples have human rights that must be respected, protected and fulfilled under these international human rights instruments. In addition to obligations under international human rights instruments, the 1987 Philippine Constitution also guarantees the human rights of all, including indigenous peoples. The constitutional rights of IPs are provided under the constitution. To further guarantee the enjoyment of their human rights, the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (RA 8371) was passed into law. The IPRA is the product of a long struggle by indigenous peoples and their allies, not only for access to resources needed for a sustainable livelihood, but also for recognition of their right to self-government and empowerment (Steven Roods, 2002). IPRA, in synopsis, recognises the existence of ICCs or IPs as a distinct sector in Philippine society. In doing so, IPRA provides for the respective civil, political, social and cultural rights of the ICCs or IPs; acknowledges a general concept of indigenous property rights and their title thereto; and creates the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as the independent implementing body of R.A.8371.
1.2.2.1 Problems and Issues
Applying the bottom-up approach, this survey starts with a query on the problems and issues that beset the indigenous cultural communities in the country. Mainly done through consultations, this query is expected to elicit in more precise terms the issues and concerns of the target tribes on their human rights in general and their rights to ancestral domains and lands in particular.
Human rights issues must be addressed responsibly by rights duty-holders. Foremost among these duty-holders is the Philippine State, the primary duty-holder of human rights of people under its jurisdiction. This is so because it is a Party to at least 23 international human rights instruments under the United Nations system. Many of these treaties impose obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all people, including the indigenous cultural communities. However, other governance stakeholders, such as civil society and the private sector, are also included as duty-bearers of the indigenous tribes in ancestral domains where they operate or hold business, respectively.
Perceptions and Awareness
This survey will draw from the respondent IPs their concepts and perceptions of their rights to ancestral domains and ancestral land. Even before rights found their way to the legal system, it was recognised that there are moral or natural rights recognised in the hearts of men. Rights are men’s birthright; hence, even without a legal system that guarantees these rights, they are inherent in everyone, inalienable, interrelated and interdependent. Thus, this survey will engage the IP respondents in identifying their rights, with a focus on the rights to ancestral domain and ancestral land.
The concept of a right to ancestral domains and ancestral lands will be explored with the aim of determining what the IPs perceive as the freedoms and entitlements that go with these rights. Specific rights have their normative content -that is, their actual meaning- which specifies the entitlements and freedoms that go with the right. This survey will attempt to find out if IPs have any concept of entitlement and freedoms that go with the different rights to ancestral domains and ancestral lands as defined under the IPRA. The survey will use the bottom-up approach in the diagnosis of these rights by finding out directly from the IP respondents what they think these rights are, rather than what is written in the IPRA. While the IPs are the subject and beneficiaries of the IPRA law, do the IPs have any concept about the rights that the IPRA law recognise, promote and protect? The rights to ancestral domains and lands under IPRA shall be used as standards for gauging the breadth and depth of perceptions and awareness of rights by the IP respondents.
The study will also determine whether the IPs are aware of the distinctions and differences of the various rights under rights to ancestral domains and ancestral lands. These rights are:
I. RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL DOMAINS (Section 7 Chapter III, R.A.8371)
1.1. Right of Ownership
1.2. Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources
1.3. Right to Stay in the Territories
1.4. Right in Case of Displacement
1.5. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants
1.6. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water
1.7. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations
1.8. Right to Resolve Conflicts
II. RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL LANDS (Section 8, Chapter III, R.A.8371)
2.1. Right to Transfer Land/Property
2.2. Right to Redemption
| 
