Indigenous Representation in Local Legislative Councils (PH0065)

What is the problem the commitment addresses?

Section 16 of RA 8371 provides that the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) have the right to participate fully, if they so choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and destinies through procedures determined by them as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous political structures. Consequently, the State shall ensure that the ICCs/IPs shall be given mandatory representation in policy-making bodies and other local legislative councils.

Currently, there are 4,294 IPMRs in the country with the following breakdown:
❏ City – 30
❏ Province-32
❏ Municipality-380
❏ Barangay 3,852

In the consultations conducted by NCIP during the 2016 Indigenous Peoples Conferences with almost 2,000 IP leaders from all over the country in attendance and additional Open Government Partnership (OGP) consultations, the following are specific gaps in the status quo identified:

Non-acceptance by local government units of selected IPMR and pushback from politicians and other stakeholders. IP groups expressed that the process of selecting the Indigenous People Mandatory Representative (IPMR) is politicized Tribal leaders aspire to represent the IPs in the Sanggunian and other local bodies. The tribal communities endorse the aspiring tribal leaders as IPMRs. However, the endorsement is not honored and these IP representatives are not recognized by local bodies. Thus,there is a need for multi-sectoral involvement to ensure a political representation.

Since its enactment in 1997 and the subsequent enabling issuances, the information gap between these issuances and the IP communities as well as other stakeholders all over the country is formidable to the point that many do not even know that the IPRA exists. There is a need to strengthen the roll-out of Revised IPMR Guidelines through all Ancestral Domains;

IP groups also raised that there are specific provisions in the IPMR guidelines that are problematic and may need to be revisited. There is a need for NCIP to document these concerns raised on the guidelines and actions taken by NCIP to address these concerns. If actions taken by NCIP involves crafting of new policies or guidelines, it should go through free and prior informed consent (FPIC) process.

What is the commitment?

The NCIP, in partnership with local IP groups, commit to ensure implementation of the policy on the IP Mandated representation in local legislative and policy-making bodies by providing guidelines and opening up more platforms to receive feedback, and facilitate reporting of current IP sector situation and government response to issues raised and concerning the IP sector.

See Action Plan for milestone activities

9. Indigenous Peoples' Mandatory Representation at the Local Level

"The NCIP, in partnership with local IP groups, commit to ensure implementation of the policy on the IP Mandated representation in local legislative and policy-making bodies by providing guidelines and opening up more platforms to receive feedback, and facilitate reporting of current IP sector situation and government response to issues raised concerning the IP sector."

Main Objective

"This commitment will help ensure that government agencies, the IP communities, local government units, will be made aware of the rights of the Indigenous Peoples to representation so that non-acceptance of IPMRs by local units and other policy-making bodies will be lessened. Secondly or most importantly, the IP communities will realize that under the law, protection for them exists and understanding of the same will lead further to their empowerment."

Milestones

1. 10 IPMR IEC/Selection activities.
2. Increase in percentage of provinces, cities, and municipalities with IPMRs (baseline in 2015: 7%).
3. Online publication of the State of the IP Situation in the Philippines.
4. Pilot implementation of Ulat Katutubo/IPMR Reporting in IP communities.
5. Reinstitutionalization of IPCC/IP Consultative Bodies.
6. Submission of annual IP feedback report to NCIP.
7. Ensure representation of relevant sectors in OGP commitment activities.

Editorial Note: For the complete text of this commitment, along with the updated version submitted in the revised action plan, please see the Philippine action plan at https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/philippines-action-plan-2019-2022/.

Commitment analysis

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) committed to partner with the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICC) and indigenous peoples through its Indigenous Peoples Structures (IPS) to implement indigenous peoples' mandatory representation (IPMR) in certain local legislative councils and policy-making bodies. The commitment seeks to increase the number of provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays that are mandated to implement IPMR from 7% in 2015 to 78% by 2021. The NCIP will publish reports on IPMR implementation, the general situation of indigenous peoples, and government responses to documented IP issues. NCIP will also pilot Ulat Katutubo, which is IPMR reporting and feedback collection from IP communities. Indigenous peoples' organizations registered with NCIP have called for the inclusion of a commitment to promote IP rights during previous action plan cycles. IP representatives successfully advocated for this commitment’s inclusion in the current action plan due to a bottom-up co-creation approach. ^[108]

With over 14 to 17 million indigenous peoples across 110 ethno-linguistic groups—mostly found in Mindanao and Cordilleras—the ICCs/IPSs are expected to participate in local legislative councils and policy-making bodies as enshrined in the law. RA 8371 (1997 Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA)) provides that ICCs/IPSs have the right to participate fully, if they so choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives, and destinies. The IPRA created the NCIP as the primary government agency to protect the interests and well-being of ICCs/IPSs with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions, and institutions. Its primary power and functions involve extending assistance to ICCs/IPSs, policy development and implementation, and the coordination of services, programs, and support from other government agencies and sectors. Administrative Order (AO) No. 3, s. 2018 of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) provides a guideline for implementing the IPMR, as amended by Commission En Banc Resolution No. 08-008-2020, Series of 2020. ^[109]

While the IPRA is the first legislation in Southeast Asia to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples over their ancestral domains, IP communities remain one of the most marginalized and poorest groups in the Philippines. ^[110] Broad support for IP communities from civil society and the nonprofit sector is undercut by the government’s conflicting approach. To illustrate, the NCIP was formed to protect and promote IP interests against the government’s own agenda, especially related to activities of the extractive industries, which often negatively impact and endanger indigenous peoples. The NCIP has also been unable to perform its primary mandate of distributing the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT), which is also affected by budgetary, technical, and human resource limitations. ^[111]

Factors that have inhibited full implementation of IPMR can largely be placed into two categories: LGU’s unwillingness to comply; and LGUs and IP groups’ lack of capacity to comply. First, some LGUs are resistant to IP representation and simply aim to “check boxes” to seemingly meet the requirements. Some LGUs lack an understanding of how IP representation seeks to correct historical injustices. ^[112] Resultantly, selection of IP representatives for LGUs is often politicized with chief executives circumventing an open and fair selection process. ^[113] Second, some IP groups and LGUs lack the financial support to undergo IPMR selection. ^[114] Additionally, many IP groups have limited capacity to develop and lobby their legislative agenda to local councils, especially groups in rural areas without CSO assistance. ^[115] Civil society representatives from CODE-PH state that this commitment responds to some of these challenges by addressing capacity constraints and promoting a fair selection process for representatives. ^[116] NCIP agreed to the inclusion of this commitment with a request that the government provide funding for its activities. At the time of writing, the government had not fulfilled these requests. ^[117]

This commitment is relevant to OGP values in terms of access to information and civic participation. IPMR representatives are tasked with creating a legislative agenda in partnership with the community they represent. Furthermore, IP consultative bodies advance grassroots representation by providing a platform for IP elders and leaders. Together, IPMR promotes the community’s legislative agenda in LGUs while consultative bodies provide space to express community issues at the municipal, provincial, and regional levels. Indigenous People Cultural Communities and consultative bodies can also act as a backup to ensure that ICCs/IPSs have a platform in instances where LGUs do not implement the IPMR policy. ^[118] The publication of reports on IP representation and issues will increase citizens’ access to information.

This commitment has a moderate potential to increase indigenous peoples’ political inclusion and access to services. The inclusion of this commitment in the action plan is itself an achievement as it brings IP rights and representation to the forefront. ^[119] Expanding IPMR to 78% would represent a significant and urgent expansion of IP civic participation. In addition to advancing a legislative agenda, IPMRs could advocate for the integration of their Ancestral Domain Sustainable Protection Plan (ADSDPP) in the LGU plans. ^[120] By strengthening IP representation on LGUs under existing guidelines, this commitment indirectly advances indigenous peoples’ main goal to gain equal access to government services. ^[121] IPMRs also offer a channel for national agencies, like DSWD and DOH, to reach rural IP communities with their projects and programming. ^[122]

However, this commitment is fairly “safe” in that it promotes existing NCIP aims and guidelines. During action plan consultations, ICCs/IPSs expressed a desire to revisit the entire IPMR selection process to make it more participatory and inclusive. Some IP representatives also advocated for a goal of 100% compliance with the IPMR policy across local governments. Additionally, there are many institutional challenges within the NCIP and its rural representatives that may hinder full implementation of this commitment. This is evidenced by the fact that the IPRA was passed more than 20 years ago and IP representation remains at 7%.

NCIP highlights resistance from some LGUs and the League of Vice Governors to implementing IP representation as a significant hurdle. [123] Positively, CODE-PH is currently working with DILG to develop a strategy to promote LGU compliance with all commitments in this action plan. A successful strategy to incentivize LGU cooperation with IPMR will be central to fulfilling this commitment’s aim. ^[124] NCIP adds that the Seal of Good Housekeeping, which assesses whether LGUs meet minimum governance standards, already incentivizes LGUs' compliance with IP representation requirements. However, NCIP states that this process should be more accessible and validated by IP communities. [125]

Next Steps

The NCIP is confronted with serious institutional weaknesses and limitations that compromise its ability to enforce compliance. As such, it needs to develop and enforce an internal reform strategy first to strengthen its capacity to advocate for IP rights and IPMR. A lack of government funding for NCIP activities will also likely prove a significant hurdle. NCIP states that implementation of Milestone 3 to pilot Ulat Katutubo is dependent on logistical support from DBM. [126] Beyond NCIP commitment and capacity, the pandemic also challenges implementation as Milestones 1 and 2 require in-person gatherings. IPs often lack the internet connectivity and resources for online activities. Adapting activities to follow public health guidelines will be necessary for implementation progress. Finally, IPs occupy a small portion of an increasingly shrinking civic space. ^[127] Civic space concerns will likely inhibit full implementation of this commitment along with many others in this action plan.

Looking ahead, efforts to increase IPMR compliance could be more effective through intra-government collaborations, especially with agencies of relevant authorities in local governance issues, such as the Department of Budget and Management as well as the Department of the Interior and Local Government. Additionally, it is important for the NCIP to enhance engagement with not only indigenous groups, but also other CSOs who have experience in dealing with and removing political and bureaucratic hurdles.

Commitment 9. Indigenous Peoples’ Mandatory Representation at the Local Level

Verifiable: Yes

Does it have an open government lens?

Yes

Potential for results: Moderate

● Completion: Limited

● Did it open government? Marginal

Indigenous Peoples’ Mandatory Representations (IPMRs) are seats for indigenous people in local decision-making bodies that have been mandated by the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act since 1997. The National Commission for Indigenous Peoples reported that 10 IPMRs (in 2 provinces, 1 city, and 8 municipalities) were selected to participate under this commitment and that 50 online meetings, with indigenous peoples’ representatives, were facilitated to discuss IPMR issues in 2021. The percentage of provinces, cities, and municipalities with IPMRs in place rose from 7% to 27.9%, which fell below the commitment’s target of 78%. [78] This increase marginally improved representation for indigenous people in local decision-making bodies, as IPMRs have had varying levels of impact on local legislation and policies. [79] The commission has not begun the milestones to publish reports on IPMR implementation (Ulat Katutubo) and the general situation of indigenous peoples or to submit government responses to documented issues for indigenous people. The agency also was not able to re-institutionalize indigenous people consultative bodies. Reportedly, an obstacle to implementation was the revision of the guidelines and procedures for IPMR reporting. The commission did not reply to IRM requests for interview and information regarding this commitment. [80]