TERM PAPER

PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL
LAW

GRANGERY M. AGTULAO
JURIS DOCTOR 2

ATTY. MILLER E. QUINTIN JR.

PROFESSOR
 Related Laws:

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

(UNDRIP); includes the ILO Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples Convention No. 169
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Acts (IPRA) of the Philippines
Maura, an 18-year-old Igorot from the Cordillera region, gained widespread attention
when her story was featured on Kapuso Mo Jessica Soho. An article, published by The
Washington Post revealed the fascinating life of this young woman, who had been
selected to be part of an exhibit at the notorious St. Louis World Fair. This exhibition
was known for its diverse collection of brains from various racial background,
representing different countries, including the Philippines. It was reported that a total of
255 brains were preserved and displayed at this facility.
According to the World Bank, Indigenous Peoples are considered distinct social and
cultural communities bound by shared ancestral connections to the lands and natural
resources they inhibit, reside in, or have been displaced and primarily possess
approximately 25% of the Earth’s land surface. The global struggle of Indigenous
Peoples to uphold their human rights and preserve their culture has been continuously
observed up until this very moment. According to data released by the environmental
and human rights organization Global Witness, between 2012 and 2021, Indigenous
peoples accounted for 35% of the total fatalities among human rights activist and
environmental and homeland defenders, which numbered over 1700 individuals.
In an article released by the Amnesty International, Indigenous people also often
marginalized and continuously face discrimination in countries’ legal system. This act of
discrimination is the reason why Indigenous people make up 15% of the world’s
extreme poor. They also have a higher rate of landlessness, malnutrition and internal
displacement than other groups. Indigenous women are also not exempt from various
challenges and risks. Research indicates that they experience elevated rates of maternal
mortality, teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In 1990s in Peru there
were more than 2000 women who were allegedly sterilized without their consent by
state authorities. It was only then in January 22, 2014 where in the Public Prosecutors
office in Lima closed their case and denied them justice. In Southern Africa, the children
of San, and other Indigenous peoples find it hard to access education. In south-east Asia,
most indigenous women and girls were trafficked across state boarders. Issues
concerning land occupation and ownership have become prevalent among Indigenous
communities. Many governments officially or legally acknowledge only a fraction of
this land as belonging to Indigenous Peoples. This lack of land tenure security, coupled
with the exploitation of natural resources and limited economic and social development,
poses significant threats to Indigenous communities.
In the Philippines, the case of Carino vs. Insular Government stands out as a pivotal and
contentious legal battle concerning the rights of Indigenous People to their ancestral
lands. Mateo Carino, an Igorot from Benguet Province, and his ancestors had claimed
ownership of the land over 50 years prior to the Treaty of Paris. Although they were
recognized as landowners, they lacked official land titles form the Spanish crown.
In 1901, Carino petitioned for ownership under the mortgage law, leading to the
registration of the land in his name with a possessory title. The US Supreme Court ruled
in favor of Carino, emphasizing that the presumption should favor private ownership
when land has been held as such for an extended period. The Court acknowledged the
uncertainty in Spanish law and learned toward safeguarding of the natives, aligning with
the principles of the organic act.
In summary, the case of Carino vs. Insular Government hold significance for Indigenous
land rights in the Philippines, with the US Supreme Court’s decision favoring Carino’s
ownership based on longstanding possession and the protection of native rights.
For the past years, the United Nations through the International Labour Organization
(ILO) continuously tried to improve the conditions of the citizenry of its members. With
this, the development and ratification of the Indigenous and Tribal Populations
Convention, 1957 (No 107) was introduced which was then revised in 1989 and
renamed Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). This recognized
the Indigenous Peoples right to self-determination within a nation-state. ILO
Convention No. 169 recognizes the IPs distinct identity, culture, custom, way of life and
traditions and their right to control their own development, within the nation-states
where they live and the responsibilities of the governments to protect these rights. Since
then, world leaders tried to develop international legislations to protect the rights of
every Indigenous People until 2007 came when the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous People was adopted.
In an article released by Cultural Survival, the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was successfully adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly having around 144 votes from the members last September 13, 2007. The
UNDRIP consolidated and affirms the mandate of governments to address all issues
concerning the rights of indigenous people. It establishes a universal framework of
minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of
the world and it elaborates on existing human rights standards and fundamental
freedoms as they apply to Indigenous people. It is considered as legally binding treaty
but as a standard setting document that reflects international law and practice on the
rights of all indigenous people.
The Philippines is one of the 144 countries who voted in favor of the adoption of the
UNDRIP hence, the creation of the Indigenous People’s Right Act of 1997 (IPRA). The
IPRA law acknowledges the rights of every indigenous people in their ancestral lands
and resources, to self-governance, and to participate in decision making that affects
them. It aims to correct historical injustice which placed the IPs at a disadvantage in
comparison to the rest of the society. It recognizes the rights of the IPs to their ancestral
land and domains and provides identification, delineation and certification processes of
these ancestral land and domains.
The IPRA law was signed into law last October 29, 1997 with the following landmark
legislation to correct historical injustice, enforce constitutional mandates and observe
international norms. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples are mandated to
protect and promote the interest and well being of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions
and institutions.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that the State recognizes and promotes the rights
of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and
development. The State shall also protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities
to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social and cultural wellbeing.
In the article, “The Subversion of the Philippines Indigenous People’s Right Act”, IPRA
was hailed as one of the most advanced laws when it comes to protecting rights of the
Indigenous people, affirming their traditional land and forest ownership. However, its
implementation faces challenges from powerful external interests that exploits legal
provisions like FPIC, legal conflicts, or coercion against Indigenous Peoples. In 2017,
39 Indigenous representatives decried continuous manipulation, violation, and erosion
of their FPIC rights, citing the complex, expensive, and uncertain CADT process.
In the assessment comparing the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No.
169, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights Acts (IPRA) of the Philippines conducted by Sedfrey M. Candelaria,
several noteworthy findings and key points emerged, including the following:
When it comes to addressing discrimination, none of these three highlights a
special right for Indigenous Peoples (IPs).
In the implementation of special measures aimed at raising the living standards
of Indigenous and tribal communities to match those of the broader national
population. ILO Convention No. 169 underscores the importance of consulting
and involving IPs in both the design and execution of these measures, thereby
granting IPs control over their well-being. On the other hand, the UNDRIP
specifically emphasizes the protection of the most vulnerable members of the
society, such as women, children, and others. The IPRA incorporates provisions
from ILO Convention No. 169 to effectively safeguard the interests of tribal and
Indigenous peoples, encompassing individuals, institutions, property, labor,
cultures and the environment. The 1987 Philippine Constitution’s mandate
regarding the equal protection clause is also included.
In relation to the right of tribal and Indigenous peoples to determine their own
development priorities, it is essential that they participate at all stages of the
development process. As a complementary principle to consultation,
participation ensures that IPs, while preserving their cultural identity, engage not
only in matters directly affecting them but also in the overall development of
their communities and respective states. Their constitutional right to preserve
and develop their cultures, traditions and institutions is considered in the
formulation of national plans and policies under Article 14, Section 17 of the
Constitution. Furthermore, IPRA serves as an implementation of Article 13,
Section 16 of the Constitution, which recognizes the right of the people and their
organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social,
political, and economic decision-making. IPRA elaborates with great detail the
element of participation through the recognition of indigenous political
structures; in the development of lands and natural resources; with expanded role
for women; in educational and cooperative undertakings; in delineation of
ancestral domains; and the settlement disputes.
In relation to cultural integrity and protection form intrusion, these three tools up
uphold and endorse the preservation, respect, and advancement of Indigenous
peoples’ cultural identities, seen as a foundation for sustainable development
within their communities. These instruments work to restore Indigenous cultures,
lifestyles, and traditions with honor and without the burden of stereotypes that
have labeled them as outdated. The provisions on cultural identity are designed
to boost the self-esteem and pride of Indigenous Peoples in their indigenous
heritage and languages.
In land rights, ILO Convention No. 169 defines land broadly, encompassing not
just the physical terrain but also the people, dwellings, air, water, animals, plants,
forests, trees, minerals, and mountains within the territories occupied and used
by indigenous communities, predating central government establishment.
UNDRIP delves deeper into land rights, including the concept of restitution in
cases of unauthorized deprivation of indigenous territories. IPRA is particularly
 comprehensive in its treatment of land for Indigenous Peoples, adopting the
native title concept from the US Supreme Court's Cariño v. Insular Government
(1909) decision. This ruling recognized Indigenous ownership of land, even
predating the Spanish conquest. Both UNDRIP and IPRA recognize the right of
Indigenous Peoples to maintain their spiritual and material connection with their
traditional lands, territories, waters, coastal areas, and resources, as well as their
obligations to future generations. ILO Convention No. 169 acknowledges the
right of tribal and indigenous peoples to transmit land through their community
customs. IPRA further elaborates on this, considering civil law concepts like
sales or non-Indigenous modes of ownership acquisition. IPRA distinguishes
between ancestral domain and land ownership, allowing for the transfer of
ancestral lands under specific conditions but prohibiting the transfer of ancestral
domains. IPRA maintains the distinction between lands traditionally occupied
and those merely accessed by Indigenous Peoples, and it affirms the mode of
transfer among Indigenous Peoples in terms of property rights. Additionally,
IPRA provides remedies for transfers tainted by coerced consent or unfair prices.
Lastly, in terms of education and other means of communication, the ILO
Convention No. 169 emphasis is given to indigenous language wherein it
provides indigenous children the right to be taught to read and write in their own
language. Also, it was emphasized the importance of preserving and promoting
their own indigenous language. Member states are also obliged to undertake
measures to educate their own nationals to remove discrimination against
ICCs/IPs by means of correcting text books and indicating a fair, accurate and
informative portrayals of the indigenous community. IPRA echoes this provision
and in addition directs the State to take effective measures to eliminate cultural
prejudice and promote tolerance and understanding. Under the IPRA law, right to
establish their own educational system is not limited but this includes the right to
provide education in their own language and in the manner appropriate to their
culture. The UNDRIP likewise mandates these kinds of rights to be established
to the Indigenous Peoples community. Additionally, the IPRA law recognizes the
right of the indigenous peoples to establish, control, and maintain their own
educational and learning systems. This is in harmony with the mandate of the
Convention of the Rights of the Child which provides that call children shall be
directed to, among others, the development of respect for the child’s parents, his
or her cultural identity, language, and values.
In the analysis of Candelaria, several sub areas were still discussed that was not
included this term paper. This indeed demonstrates that the IPRA law meets the
standards set by the ILO Convention No. 169 and UNDRIP. Furthermore, there are
provisions in the law that are not included in the ILO Convention No. 169 and UNDRIP.
With this
In conclusion, the journey towards recognizing and safeguarding the rights of
Indigenous Peoples has been long and arduous, marked by struggles, resilience and
hard-fought victories. The international community, through instruments like ILO
Convention No. 169, UNDRIP, and national legislation such as the IPRA, has made
significant strides in acknowledging the profound importance of Indigenous cultures,
lands and traditions.
REFERENCES:
[Link]
key_to_lasting_peace_is_recognition_of_human_security_and_rights_of_nagorno_kara
bakh_people_mnatsaka/
[Link]
documents/publication/wcms_171406.pdf?
fbclid=IwAR24kqlVSQ5xGduSpTDxczgVzAQj77Kpgsc16Zoo42dnYAn2qLQSrKgN_
2I
[Link]
the-18-year-old-igorot-sent-to-take-part-in-the-1904-world-s-fair/story/
[Link]
%20are%20distinct%20social,which%20they%20have%20been%20displaced.
[Link]
[Link]
fbclid=IwAR2IZpA2ho_t3llCg-3gYLdU7QPKIIzmsrmOKwQMW6tdvkf_Nv-
ODss2muc#:~:text=Many%20of%20the%20110%20ethno,unemployment%2C
%20underemployment%2C%20and%20illiteracy
[Link]
[Link]
19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
[Link]
[Link]
peoples
[Link]
[Link]
their-rights-and-the-conservation-of-nature/a-66477245
[Link]
parliamentarians-on-the-convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/chapter-
[Link]
[Link]
1#:~:text=It%20establishes%20a%20universal%20framework,they%20apply%20to
%20Indigenous%20peoples.
1. What domestic law/rule, affecting your profession/course, is a result of or arising from a
treaty/convention/protocol in which the Philippines is a signatory?
RA 8371 - Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Acts (IPRA) of the Philippines

2. What is the treaty/convention/protocol? When was it signed by the representative of the

Philippines and ratified by the Senate?
- UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
- The article on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was recognized in the
international sphere and was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during the 61 st
session at UN headquarters in New York on Sept. 13, 2007.

3. What international concerns does the treaty/convention/protocol address?

- It establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity
and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world and it elaborates on existing human
rights standards and fundamental freedoms as they apply to Indigenous peoples.
- Equality of Indigenous peoples in dignity and rights, respecting their unique identities.
Recognizing that diverse cultures enrich humanity’s heritage, condemning racist beliefs and
affirming freedom from discrimination for indigenous communities. Acknowledging historical
injustices, colonization, and dispossession, hindering their development and rights.
- Emphasizing the importance of respecting indigenous peoples’ inherent rights to their
lands, resources and traditions. Acknowledging their efforts in overcoming discrimination and
oppression. Asserting that indigenous control over their lands fosters cultural preservation,
development and environmental sustainability.
- Highlighting the significance of demilitarization in indigenous lands for peace, social
progress and global harmony. Recognizing the right of indigenous families to raise their children
and determining their relationships with states in a spirit of mutual respect and coexistence.

4. What are the international obligations in the treaty that necessitated the passage of the
domestic law/rule?
- The central themes of UNDRIP include:
the right to self‐determination;
the right to be recognized as distinct peoples;
the right to free, prior and informed consent;
the right to be free from discrimination.
The core matter of self‐determination affirms the right of Indigenous peoples to decide what is
best for their communities and to carry out those decisions in ways that are meaningful to
their people. This includes respecting existing treaty relationships and invites the negotiation
of new agreements.
The Declaration includes protections for cultural rights, such as preserving Indigenous
languages and religions. Many Indigenous languages are on the verge of being – or have
already become – extinct. Similarly, many Indigenous cultural and religious practices have been
violently suppressed worldwide by Christian colonial rule for centuries. They require specific
and special protection.
The Declaration also includes rights to lands, territories, resources and the environment. It
supports rights to self‐determination in key areas such as legal systems, health and education.
UNDRIP calls on states to create effective mechanisms to address human rights violations. This
includes redress for attacks on Indigenous peoples’ identity, integrity and self‐determination.
5. Did the domestic law/rule fully comply with the treaty/convention/protocol or were their
obligations which the Philippines did not address?
- Yes, The Philippines did not immediately support the draft. It abstained when the first
vote was called, despite the existence of the Indigenous People’s Right Act of 1997. The
department of Justine and the Office of the Solicitor General expressed their opposition to the
adoption, as justice and the Office of the Solicitor General expressed their opposition to the
adoption, as they still had to study whether this was consistent with the Philippine
Constitution. Furthermore, the NCIP, which was the representative organization of the
Philippine IPs did not endorse it first. However, after reviewing the declaration, the Philippines
supported and voted yes.

6. What domestic issues does the domestic law/rule address?

- RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL DOMAINS/LANDS

1. Right of ownership;
2. Right to develop lands and natural resources;
3. Right to stay in territories;
4. Right in case of displacement;
5. Right to regulate entry of migrants;
6. Right to safe and clean air and water;
7. Right to claim parts of reservation (except those reserved and intended for common and
public welfare and service; 8. Right to resolve conflict;
9. Right to transfer land/property to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs, subject to
customary laws and traditions of the community concerned;
10. Right to redemption of all transferred to a non-IP where the transfer is tainted by vitiated
consent or the land is transferred for an unconscionable consideration or price;
.
RIGHTS TO SELF-GOVERNANCE AND EMPOWERMENT
11. Authentication of Indigenous leadership Titles and Certificates of tribal membership;
12. Recognition of Socio-Political Institutions and structures;
13. Right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions,
peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their
respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal system and with
internationally recognized human rights;
14. Right to participate in decision-making (mandatory representation in policy-making bodies
and other local legislative councils);
15. Right to determine and decide priorities for development;
16. Tribal barangays (may form or constitute a separate barangay in accordance with the
LGC/Sec. 386 par. A);
17. Right to Organize and Associate for collective actions;
.
SOCIAL JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS
18. Equal protection and non-discrimination;
19. Rights during armed conflict;
20. Freedom from discrimination and right to equal opportunity and treatment;
21. Right to basic services;
22. Rights of women;
23. Rights of children and youth;
24. Right to integrated system of education/right to education;
.
RIGHTS TO CULTURAL INTEGRITY
25. Protection of indigenous culture, traditions and institutions;
26. Right to establish and control their educational and learning systems;
27. Recognition of cultural diversity;
28. Recognition of customary laws and practices governing civil relations;
29. Right to name, identity and history;
30. Protection of Community Intellectual Rights;
31. Rights to religious, cultural sites and ceremonies;
32. Rights to Indigenous Spiritual Beliefs and Traditions, and protection of sacred places;
33. Right to indigenous knowledge systems and practices and to develop own science and
technologies; 34. Protection of biological and genetic resources;
35. Right to sustainable agro-technological development;
36. Right to receive funds for archeological and historical sites and artifacts;

In sum, IPRA is one of the world’s most advanced laws when it comes to the rights of
indigenous people. It clearly states that lands and forests that they have traditionally used for
their existence, as well as the resources under them, belong to these communities. The
problem lies in the implementation of the law, which has been subverted by powerful external
interests that have exploited provisions of the law such as FPIC or the contradictions of the law
with other laws or simply used force to displace these indigenous peoples. When there comes
into existence a relatively progressive government that puts its authority in support of
indigenous peoples, then IPRA will become an invaluable mechanism to preserve and advance
their rights and interests.