Karapatan ng mga katutubo

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | September 19, 2021

Sa pag-usad ng panahon, marami na sa atin ang pamilyar o nakarinig na sa mga salitang “katutubo, indigenous people o IPs.” Gayunman, sa kabila ng mas pinabilis na daloy ng komunikasyon at pagsulong ng teknolohiya, ang kabaliktaran at kasalatan sa tunay na karapatan ng katutubo o indigenous people. Dahil dito, nararapat na bisitahin natin muli ang mga karapatan ng ating mga mahal na kababayang katutubo.

Para sa kaalaman ng nakararami, nakasaad sa Republic Act No. 8371, o mas kilala sa tawag na “The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA Law),” ang mga sumusunod na konsepto ng tinubuang lupa at pagmamay-ari:

“Section 4. Concept of Ancestral Lands/Domains. - Ancestral lands/domains shall include such concepts of territories which cover not only the physical environment but the total environment including the spiritual and cultural bonds to the area which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy and use and to which they have claims of ownership.

Section 5. Indigenous Concept of Ownership. - Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the view that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that ancestral domains are the ICC's/IP's private but community property which belongs to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable traditional resource rights.” (Binigyang-diin)

Kaugnay ng mga konseptong ito, ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema sa kamakailan lamang na kasong Sama vs. People (G.R. No. 224469, January 5, 2021), sinulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, ang saklaw ng karapatan ng mga katutubo o indigenous people, viz:

“At one end, there are those IP rights which are practices, customs, and traditions integral to the distinctive IP culture of the group claiming the right. The "occupation and use of the land" where the activity is taking place, however, is not "sufficient to support a claim of title to the land.” Nevertheless, these activities receive constitutional protection.

In the middle, there are activities which, out of necessity, take place on land and indeed, might be intimately related to a particular piece of land. Although a particular indigenous cultural community (ICC) may not be able to demonstrate title to the land, it may nevertheless have a site specific right to engage in a particular activity.

Even where an IP right exists on a tract of land to which the ICC in question does not have title, that right may well be site specific, with the result that it can be exercised only upon that specific tract of land. For example, if an ICC demonstrates that hunting on a specific tract of land was an integral part of their distinctive culture then, even if the right exists apart from title to that tract of land, the IP right to hunt is nonetheless defined as, and limited to, the right to hunt on the specific tract of land.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is the IP title itself. IP title confers more than the right to engage in site-specific activities which are aspects of the practices, customs, and traditions of distinctive IP cultures. IP site-specific rights can be made out even if IP title cannot; what IP title confers is the right to the land itself.” (Binigyang-diin)

Kaya naman, lingid sa kaalaman ng nakararami, ang karapatan ng mga katutubo o indigenous people ay malawak at tiyak. Base sa ating siniping teksto, ang respeto ay hindi lamang limitado sa pagkilala, bagkus ay kasama na rin ang karapatang mapangalagaan ang integridad ng kani-kanilang kultura, kaugalian, tinubuang lupa at pagmamay-ari.

Sa madaling salita, bilang manipestasyon ng katutubong karapatan na panatilihin ang integridad ng katutubong kultura, bilang halimbawa, “Kung bahagi na ng kaugalian at gawain ng isang katutubong grupo na umani ng kahoy o mangaso sa isang kagubatan bilang katibayan at pagpapakita ng kanilang kasarinlan at kultura, ay nararapat na ito ay pahintulutan.” (Sa kasong Sama vs. People, Ibid, p. 34, nakasaad ang basehan ng halimbawa.)

Sa kabilang banda, bilang manipestasyon naman ng katutubong karapatang magmay-ari o ang naunang nabanggit na IP Title, nararapat din na kilalanin at tanggapin na maging ang mga katutubo o indigenous people ay maaaring magkaroon ng karapatan sa katutubong lupa. Hinggil dito, gamit ang salita ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman: “IP title confers ownership rights similar to those associated with fee simple, including the right to decide how the land will be used; the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land; the right to possess the land; the right to the economic benefits of the land; and the right to pro-actively use and manage the land.” (Sama vs. People, Id., p. 35)

Gayunman, tulad ng lahat ng karapatan, ang mga nabanggit ay may kaakibat din na limitasyon at obligasyon para sa ating mga katutubo. Bilang pagpapaalala at pagbibigay-diin, malinaw sa nabanggit na Seksiyon 5 ng IPRA Law na ang pagmamay-ari ng katutubo ay panlahat at communal. Muli, gamit ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema sa Sama vs. People, nabanggit doon na:

“In contrast, IP title is sui generis as it carries an important restriction - it is collective and communal title held not only for the present generation but for all succeeding generations. What IPs have is the concept of mutual sharing of resources wherein no individual, regardless of status, is without sustenance. This means the land and its resources cannot be alienated or encumbered except to the State and in ways that would prevent future generations of the group from using and enjoying it. Nor can the land be developed or misused in a way that would substantially deprive future generations of the benefit of the land though some changes even permanent changes to the land may be possible. These uses must also be reconciled with the ongoing communal nature of the IPs or ICCs’ attachment to the land.” (Binigyang-diin)