The Legality of Plebiscite as Mechanism for Expansion of Bangsamoro Territories where it overlaps with Ancestral Domain

A Paper delivered upon the invitation of the Bangsamoro Transition Commission Feb. 27-28, 2014 at the Linden Suites, Ortigas Centre, Pasig By: Atty. Ida May La Good Morning. Thank-you for allowing me to share this paper with you and I hope this helps the Commission in the drafting of the Basic Law. I. INTRODUCTION The POWER SHARING ANNEX to the Framework Agreement of the Bangsamoro (FAB) provide that Ancestral Domains, Protection of IPs and "special development projects for IPs" are among the "EXCLUSIVE POWER OF THE BANGSAMORO". The ANNEX on REVENUE GENERATION AND WEALTH SHARING does not mention any provision for Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) as a prior condition to exploitation of natural resources found in Ancestral Domains within the Bangsamoro Territory. The immediately affected IP are the Lambangian, Teduray and Dulangan Manobo of Maguindanao whose ADs are in the "core areas" as a result of the Plebiscite conducted in 2001. They have not been awarded CADTs despite many other Indigenous Tribes of the country having secured theirs because of the ambivalence introduced by peace negotiations. Other IPs may be affected by the passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law given that the Framework Agreement allows for an indefinite expansion of territory through the continuous mechanism of Plebiscite conducted after LGU Resolution/10% petition "anytime", as the FAB states, after the initial Plebiscite. At the onset it is important to remember that CADTs are only a "formalization" of AD claims. Section 11, of the IPRA, provides: SEC. 11. Recognition of Ancestral Domain Rights. The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains by virtue of Native Title shall be recognized and respected. Formal recognition, when solicited by ICCs/ IPs concerned, shall be embodied in a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which shall recognize the title of the concerned ICCs/IPs over the territories identified and delineated. With or without a CADT, therefore, the State confers recognition and guarantees the rights over--Ancestral Domain. The 1987 Phil. Constitution has the following provisions: Art. II, Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural
Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

communities within the framework of national unity and development. Art. XII, National Economy and Patrimony, Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being. The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain. Art XIII, Social Justice and Human Rights, Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. Art X. Local Government. Section 20. Within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for legislative powers over: 1. Administrative organization; 2. Creation of sources of revenues; 3. Ancestral domain and natural resources; 4. Personal, family, and property relations; 5. Regional urban and rural planning development; 6. Economic, social, and tourism development; 7. Educational policies; 8. Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and 9. Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region. These are Constitutional provisions that limit and define the authority of Congress when it passes into law the Bangsamoro Basic Law. The Bangsamoro Basic Law must therefore hurdle the issues of constitutionality before Congress can vote upon its passage. Also, it is important to remember that the Philippines is a member in good standing of the International Community. Its adherence and compliance with International Conventions are a basic tenet of diplomatic relations. Article II Section 2 of the Phil. Constitution adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. And the relevant International Covenants are the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIPS) , the UN Convention for the Prevention of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Vienna Convention and Programme of Action, the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

The Bangsamoro Basic Law should not provide cause against the GRP for violation of its international obligations under these Conventions else, the BBL's passage into law be derailed by such a probable legal consequence. II. DISCUSSION The IPRA defines "Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples" as a group of people or homogenous societies identified by self ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, nonindigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of nonindigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains. The "Bangsamoro", on the other hand, is defined in the FAB as "The Parties recognize the Bangsamoro identity. Those who at the time of conquest and colonization were considered natives of inhabitants of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago and its adjacent islands including Palawan, and their descendants whether of mixed or full blood shall have the right to identify themselves as Bangsamoro by ascription or self-ascription. Spouses and their descendants shall be classified as Bangsamoro. The freedom of choice of other indigenous peoples shall be respected." * In the definition of the Bangsamoro, compared to the definition of the IPRA, there is the lack of the "common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits" as well as "their own economic, social, cultural and political institutions". There is neither a reference to Islam as an identifying trait or a basis of commonality among the Bangsamoro. Only territory, pre-conquest inhabitation of the same and blood descendants are given as basis for identification of what is Bangsamoro. The definition of what is Bangsamoro seems to emphasize territory over distinct indigenous traits and thus allow for inclusion of ALL pre-conquest inhabitants; including all IPs of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. This implies that the Bangsamoro may be openly inviting IPs to subsume their rights to self-governance to the Bangsamoro authority especially if representation is granted to it under the proposed ministerial form of government. So that the FAB then found it necessary to qualify this definition with "The freedom of choice of other indigenous peoples shall be respected."

Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

1. By the use of the word "other" did the Bangsamoro thereby identify themselves as "Indigenous Peoples" as defined by international law and the IPRA? Or by chance is the Bangsamoro declaring that IPs whose AD are found within the core areas after the 2001 Plebiscite, have already accepted this "invitation" and are deemed to have subsumed their rights to selfgovernance and self-determination to the Bangsamoro, hence the need to refer to "other" IPs in relation to those who have already subsumed their rights? But then this begs a third question: are IP rights, being recognized worldwide as having genealogical, spiritual and inter-generational dimensions, susceptible of being subject of modification or mutation through Plebiscite vote or are they, by definition, INALIENABLE? Meaning they cannot be taken

away from neither can they be given away by, the possessors of the right.

Plebiscite is "one person, one vote and majority wins" but it is ineffectual where a so-called "minority" is subject of special protection as "peoples". Besides which, the idea of plebiscite throws IPs into a conundrum. Consensus and the slow but sure process of consensus building, appears to be closer to IP customs and traditions, as a means of arriving at a collective decision. The answer to these fundamental questions provide a possible framework for dealing with all the Indigenous Peoples of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. More specific questions also have to be raised to represent in this consultation the feeling of deep insecurity of the IPs with regard to Bangsamoro expansion. The questions may serve a useful purpose as a dry run for Congressional interpellations in the course of deliberations on the Bangsamoro Basic Law. Q 2. Does the Annex on Power Sharing seek the amendment and/or repeal of IPRA or RA 8371 from Congress? If so, to what extent? Q 3. Will another government instrumentality be created to implement the IPRA in Bangasmoro territories? Q 4. In short, is the freedom of the "other IP" not to be ascribed as Bangsamoro and the recognition of customary law without an express recognition of IPRA and the bundle of rights recognized therein, an attempt to carve out a new regime of rights of indigenous peoples? Q 5. Is this new regime of rights premised on the Bangsamoro's SUPERIOR right relative to the "other indigenous peoples" or does the Bangsamoro consider itself on equal footing with other indigenous peoples? Q 6. Will the fundamental rights to self-determination and self-governance over AD of "other IPs" be respected in this new regime? Q 7. If the AD is in contiguous areas and there is an LGU Resolution and/or petition by 10% of the population in Barangays, Municipalities or Cities, will the Transition Committee include it in the plebiscite where majority of the
Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

qualified voters decide, whether these voters are IP or not? Q 8. What is the definition of "substantial Bangsamoro populations" as the FAB qualifying requirement for contiguous areas to be included in a Plebiscite for inclusion "anytime"? Q 9. If the right to regulate entry of migrant populations is not recognized by the Bangsamoro as one of the fundamental IP rights, will the fluidity of population movement then subject AD to constant incursions and possible eventual dislocation? IPRA, IRR, Section 5. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants and Other Entities. The collective right to use everything within the domain/land is limited only to the recognized members of the ICCs/IP community. Accordingly, the ICCs/IPs shall have the right to regulate the entry of migrants, including organizations who intend to do business, engage in development or other form of activities, in their ancestral domains/lands. For this purpose, the following shall be applicable: . x x x x x x

. c) Procedure for Regulating Entry of Migrants and Other Entities. All migrants and other entities must first secure the express permission of the communitys council of elders/leaders who shall, in accordance with their consensus building process, community practices, customs and traditions and upon the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of the community members agree to accept such migrant or entity within the domains, subject to the following conditions: (1) Said persons and entities can be allowed to perform activities as are expressly authorized and which are not inimical to the development of the ancestral domains and cultural integrity of the ICCs/IPs, and (2) The ICCs/IPs shall maintain the right to impose penalties for violation of the conditions in accordance with their customary laws, the Act or its rules and regulations. Q 10. After expansion is successful, will the entitlement to a share in the revenue raised by exploitation of natural resources within IP ADs now redound to the Bangsamoro, bi-passing the FPIC procedures provided for in the IPRA Law? Q. 11. Will the Bangsamoro be then empowered to draft development plans for the AD areas where the vote held sway among IPs and non-IPs? As I said, these questions embody the deep insecurity felt by the IPs as a result of the ambivalence of the FAB and the Annexes on the matter of IP rights. Something that begs remedy in the drafting of the Bangsamoro Basic Law. III. LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS TO THE USE OF PLEBISCITES FOR EXPANSION OF BANGSAMORO TERRITORY

Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

The AD of the Teduray, Lambangian and Dulangan-Manobo are already included in the core areas by virtue of the plebiscite of 2001. BUT the legal propriety of the 2001 PLEBISCITE where it adversely affects IPs rights to self-determination, self-governance and ancestral domain, can be subject of challenge on two grounds: I. It is Discriminatory where it assumes that the right to selfdetermination and self-governance of the Bangsamoro is superior to the rights of un-Islamized indigenous peoples so that by the mechanism of Plebiscite, the latter's rights may yield to the former. The State cannot confer a preferential right for one IP in derogation of the rights of other IPs. Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines "racial discrimination" as ...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. If the effect of the 2001 plebiscite which included the AD of the Teduray, Lambangian, Dulangan-Manobo in the core areas of the ARMM and now the Bangsamoro New Political Entity, is that they are unable to secure the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of their IP rights over Ancestral Domainthen the 2001 Plebiscite and all succeeding and similar acts having this adverse effect on these IPs are State acts giving undue preference to the Bangsamoro for which the GRP and the Bangsamoro which received preferential treatment, may be held accountable under International Law. This is the effect which the Bangsamoro must avoid to prevent challenges to the constitutionality of the BBL and to prevent recourse to dispute resolution in international fora. II. A plebiscite can also be viewed as a mechanism of Enforced Assimilation where it allows migrant populations that have mixed with indigenous tribes within Ancestral Domains to vote and have their political will as majority hold sway contrary to the avowed purpose of the IPRA to recognize the rights to self-determination and selfgovernance within Ancestral Domains and even to control migrant populations found therein. Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides: 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. NO LONGER and NOT SINCE the International Covenant on ECOSOC entered into force in 1976, are indigenous peoples, regardless of population density, referred to as MINORITIES. To do so would mean to allow the tyranny of the MAJORITY to defeat the inalienable right of indigenous peoples to self-determination within ADs. This is the root of the legal defect of the exercise of plebiscite where it affects Ancestral Domains. Plebiscite is the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution or, as in this case, the ratification of a new Basic Law. The majority vote in a Plebiscite, however, is not in consonance with and is prohibited by international law where mixed populations operate to defeat the protection guaranteed by law for IPs rights over ADs. Article 8 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted in 2007, provides: 1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. 2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for: (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities; (b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources; (c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights; (d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration; (e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them. page8image19968.png The matter of Ancestral Domain and IP rights over AD cannot be included in a general plebiscite where non-IPs votes would be counted for or against inclusion into
Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

the Bangsamoro territory. The democratic vote does not apply in areas where Congress, through the IPRA and in implementation of Constitutional provisions, has already provided for the protection and recognition of a different set of rights over territories claimed as AD. It must be remembered that the IPRA is the correction of the State's historical abuse of the fundamental rights and freedoms of indigenous peoples. Historical policies of assimilation through government programs encouraging migrant populations through land grants in Mindanao and through timber concessions in ADs were now addressed by IPRA through the mechanism of securing Free and Prior Informed Consent or FPIC as a precondition for any development project and the recognition of a bundle of rights over Ancestral Domains: IPRA, SEC. 59. Certification Precondition. All departments and other governmental agencies shall henceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing, renewing, or granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into any production sharing agreement, without prior certification from the NCIP that the area affected does not overlap with any ancestral domain. Such certification shall only be issued after a field-based investigation is conducted by the Ancestral Domains Office of the area concerned: Provided, That no certification shall be issued by the NCIP without the free and prior informed and written consent of ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, further, That no department, government agency or government-owned or controlled corporation may issue new concession, license, lease, or production sharing agreement while there is a pending application for a CADT: Provided, finally, That the ICCs/IPs shall have the right to stop or suspend, in accordance with this Act, any project that has not satisfied the requirement of this consultation process. Although Certification Precondition deals with "issuing, renewing, or granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into any production sharing agreement" it should be equally applicable to Plebiscites where the areas covered overlap with AD because power over disposition of natural resources will be conferred on the Bangsamoro if the AD is not segregated or excluded from Plebiscite coverage. The Philippine Government has historically perpetuated enforced assimilation in government programs awarding land grants, timber concessions and mining rights to migratory populations in Mindanao. By introducing settler populations exercising economic and political affluence, the government hoped to subjugate and marginalize the IPs, in the hopes of better exploiting natural resources found within their ADs. IPRA and the UNDRIPS corrects this historical abuse. Ample proof of this is that the IPRA allows the IP to regulate the entry of migrant settlers within their ADs. Thus it is necessary to clarify what IP rights the New Political Entity is recognizing. These must be expressed in the Basic Law because it is the precisely the function of a Basic Law to define the limits to the exercise of political power vis-a-vis the constituents of the Political Entity. The limits are the 1987 Phil. Constitution, International Covenants which the
Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

GRP has integrated into its national law and Enabling Legislation such as the IPRA. To lobby for amendment of the Constitution along with the International Covenants which the GRP has acceded to and given the vested rights that have already accrued to IP beneficiaries since IPRA's passage into law in 1997 would be a formidable task notwithstanding the political support for the Bangsamoro in Congress. This must not derail the tight schedule for the Bangsomoro's establishment of its ministerial government by 2016. 12. How can the Basic Law of the Bangsamoro now avoid acts of discrimination and refrain from re-establishing the historical violations of indigenous peoples rights through enforced assimilation? IV. RECOMMENDATIONS: The definition of "Bangsamoro" and its use in these peace negotiations is a marked departure from the Muslim Mindanao formulation of the MNLF. To me, it's legal implication is that the Bangsamoro is asserting it' s character as Indigenous Peoples with pre-conquest claims to it's territories in Mindanao Sulu and Palawan. In order for it to be economically viable, it requires an expansion of territory. The mechanism of Plebiscite, however, which it proposes to use for expansion, may be tainted by unconstitutionality and be violative of international conventions insofar as it has the effect of depriving IPs of guaranteed rights over AD. BUT I posit a question here that might provide a new perspective: Is it not legally favorable for the Bangsamoro to invoke for itself and other IPs the benefits of the IPRA, the UNDRIPS and other international instruments AS INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, over and above what it has successfully negotiated in the FAB? The UNDRIPS provides: Article 2. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. Article 3. Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Article 4. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

Article 5. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action provides: 20. The World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the inherent dignity and the unique contribution of indigenous people to the development and plurality of society and strongly reaffirms the commitment of the international community to their economic, social and cultural well-being and their enjoyment of the fruits of sustainable development. States should ensure the full and free participation of indigenous people in all aspects of society, in particular in matters of concern to them. Considering the importance of the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous people, and the contribution of such promotion and protection to the political and social stability of the States in which such people live, States should, in accordance with international law, take concerted positive steps to ensure respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, and recognize the value and diversity of their distinct identities, cultures and social organization. Are these not the very rights that the Bangsamoro are asserting? 1. There is no further need to add to the statement of recognition, guarantee and definition of individual and collective rights of IP contained in the IPRA, UNDRIPS and above-quoted international instruments. There is only the need to express adherence to these covenants in the Basic Law of the Bangsamoro especially since these are rights the Bangsamoro also seek for themselves as indigenous peoples. Peaceful co-existence and mutual respect between indigenous peoples, therefore, should be one of the overriding concerns in drafting the Basic Law. The Philippine government is under international obligation to protect IP rights. For redress of grievances or violations of IP rights, recourse may be had before international fora like the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples Rights which advises the Economic and Social Council; and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) which was established by the Human Rights Council, the UNs main human rights body, in 2007. The Expert Mechanism provides the Human Rights Council with thematic advice, in the form of studies and research, on the rights of Indigenous peoples as directed by the Council. It holds sessions annually and accredited IPs may file its Reports in said sessions. There is also recourse to the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples who can address specific cases of alleged violations of IP rights through communications with governments and other international bodies and whose mandate includes promoting "good practices", including new laws, government programs, and constructive agreements between indigenous peoples and states, to implement international standards concerning the rights of indigenous
Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

peoples. The GRP is duty-bound to submit periodical Reports of Compliance with international conventions such as the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the UNDRIPS. The Bangsamoro and other IPs can dispute the periodical GRP reports and ask for UN Rapporteur to come to Mindanao and validate their claims if the violation is widespread or institutional or have long-term repercussions. These are a solid mechanisms whereby the Bangsamoro as IP can continue to hold the GRP accountable in international fora. In short, IP rights are so wellentrenched under Phil. law and under International Law that it might be more favorable for the Bangsamoro to avail of such well-entrenched rights as IP rather than be selective in its enforcement and open itself to legal challenge at this sensitive stage of formation. And there is nothing to prevent the Bangsamoro from asserting these bundle of rights over and above the concessions it has obtained through peace negotiations because the Bangsamoro have already been defined as Indigenous Peoples in the FAB. There is only the matter of establishing EQUALITY between Indigenous Peoples in the ensuing Basic Law. 2. If the Bangsamoro intends to respect the rights of indigenous peoples, it must encourage the process of delineation of Ancestral Domains of the Teduray, Lambangian and Dulangan-Manobo peoples of Maguindanaw and confer recognition on the same in their Basic Law. Thereafter, the Bangsamoro can negotiate with the IP on equal footing through the mechanism of the FPIC if it wants to achieve an inclusive form of development and achieve good standing in the International Community. 3. The NCIP, is contemplated as a process observer, documentor and arbiter in the course of securing FPIC, to ensure that consensus is arrived at in accordance with their customary laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of an activity, in a language and process understandable to the community. In the event of a dispute between IPs, the IRR of the IPRA provides it be resolved according to the customary law in the area of the dispute, with appeal to the NCIP in the event of failure of resolution: RULE IX. JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS Section 1. Primacy of Customary Law. All conflicts related to ancestral domains and lands, involving ICCs/IPs, such as but not limited to conflicting claims and boundary disputes, shall be resolved by the concerned parties through the application of customary laws in the area where the disputed ancestral domain or land is located. All conflicts related to the ancestral domains or lands where one of the parties is
Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO

a non- ICC/IP or where the dispute could not be resolved through customary law shall be heard and adjudicated in accordance with the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedures Before the NCIP to be adopted hereafter. Thus, the NCIP is also contemplated as dispute resolving body. The BBL must be able to provide means for IPs to seek redress for violation of rights and resolution of disputes in its legal structure. The GRP has already done this through the IPRA and creation of the NCIP. If the BBL wants to depart from these established mechanisms, it should be able to provide viable substitutes because although it may define its relation with the GRP as "asymmetrical" it is not exempt from the reach of laws as fundamental as the Phil. Constitution, generally accepted principles of international law and the IPRA. Conceivably, a commission wherein IPs with ADs found within Bangsamoro territory can be created and IPs can be represented in said body and be conferred with powers of dispute resolution, redress for IP grievances, control over FPIC processes, AD delineation, etc. but why duplicate a function which the national government has already operationalized and appropriated funds for? 4. The simplest remedy is often the best. The situation calls for the Bangsamoro Basic Law to expressly exclude areas which are claimed as Ancestral Domain by other indigenous tribes from the coverage of PLEBISCITEs in the course of expanding territory as provided in the FAB. Those ADs which are already found within Bangsamoro territories may be declared in the BBL as areas where the IPRA remain in full force and effect. And thereafter deal with the IPs on equal footing through the FPIC for mutually beneficial development projects. The IPRA is no ordinary piece of legislation which can be modified, amended or repealed by subsequent Congressional act such as passage of the BBL. It is the enabling law of UN Conventions (even though it preceded the UNDRIPS) where it embodies State recognition of fundamental rights of indigenous peoples. An enabling law is compliance with the UN Convention. Thus, if the Bangsamoro Basic Law fails to comply with GRP State obligations under international law, it may encounter difficulties in passage when it is brought to Congress, thereby derailing the timetable for establishing Bangsamoro governance. These should persuade the Bangsamoro to formally recognize IP rights in their Basic Law because the Bangsamoro by its own definition is asserting the same indigenous peoples' rights to identity, self -determination and self governance. Again, let me thank the Transition Commission for this opportunity to contribute to this historic endeavor.

Uploaded by IPDEV with the permission of Atty Ida LaO