1 2014 Philippine Land Reform Monitoring Report: Resource Conflicts and Human Rights Violations in the Philippines The Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development In Partnership with: College of Social Work and Community Development Xavier Science Foundation University of the Philippines Xavier University With the support of:
66
Embed
2014 Philippine Land Reform Monitoring Report: Resource ...ilc-nes.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/11_2014-Phil... · AMGL Alyansa ng mga Magbubukid sa Gitnang Luzon ANGOC Asian NGO
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
2014 Philippine Land Reform Monitoring Report:
Resource Conflicts and Human Rights Violations in the Philippines
The Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
In Partnership with:
College of Social Work and Community Development Xavier Science Foundation
University of the Philippines Xavier University
With the support of:
2
Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform
and Rural Development (ANGOC)
33 Mapagsangguni Street
Sikatuna Village, Diliman
Quezon City 1101
Philippines
Tel No.: (63-2) 351-0581
Telefax No.: (63-2) 351-0011
Website: www.angoc.org
Citation:
Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. (2015). 2014 Philippine
Land Reform Monitoring Report: Resource conflicts and human rights violations in the
Philippines. Quezon City: Author.
This publication was made possible with the support of the International Land Coalition (ILC)
and Misereor. However, the views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views
and policies of ILC and Misereor.
This publication may be freely cited, quoted, reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise) provided proper citation of the author is made.
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ANGOC would like to thank the following for their contributions to this research paper:
PEER REVIEWERS
College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines Diliman
Dr. Emmanuel M. Luna, Ph.D. Chairperson, Doctor of Social Development Program
Research and Extension for Development Office
Prof. Rainier V. Almazan, Director, REDO
Leah B. Angeles, University Researcher II, REDO
Celeste F. Vallejos, University Extension, REDO
Xavier Science Foundation, Xavier University
Prof. Roel R. Ravanera, Executive Director
KEY INFORMANTS
Department of Agrarian Reform
Atty. Justin Vincent La Chica, Assistant Secretary, Legal Affairs Office
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
Atty. Jeanette A. Florita, Director, Legal Affairs Office
Ms. Dahlialyn D. Dait-Cawed, Office of Empowerment and Human Rights Office
Engr. Annabel Pinkihan, Ancestral Domains Office
Atty. Gillian S. Dunuan, Legal Affairs Office
Philippine Association For Intercultural Development
Dave De Vera, Executive Director
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Amnesty International (Gemma Cunanan)
Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development (Lorraine Ablan)
4
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (Joy Demaluan)
Commission on Human Rights (Atty. Marc Titus D. Cebreros)
Department of Agrarian Reform (Undersecretary Jose Z. Grageda)
Institute of Social Order (Marie Alum dela Rosa)
International Land Coalition-Asia (Erpan Faryadi and Anna Brillante)
NGO for Fisheries Reform (Erlo Matorres)
Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (Bobbet Corral)
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (Max de Mesa)
Philippine Association For Intercultural Development (Dave de Vera)
Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas
(Felicidad Corpus and Caridad Corridor)
Task Force Mapalad, Inc. (Raquel M. Abellon)
Tungo sa Kaunlaran ng Kanayunan at Repormang Pansakahan (Maricel Tolentino)
UP-CSWCD (Anne Di V. Berdin)
The Peoples’ Campaign for Agrarian Reform Network, Inc. (Wilson Requez)
SOURCES OF CASES
The Peoples’ Campaign for Agrarian Reform Network, Inc. (AR Now!)
Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (CARRD)
Institute of Social Order (ISO)
Philippine Association For Intercultural Development (PAFID)
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
NGO for Fisheries Reform (NFR)
International Land Coalition
Misereor
5
ACRONYMS USED
ALI Agrarian Law Implementation
ALS Agrarian Legal Services
AMGL Alyansa ng mga Magbubukid sa Gitnang Luzon
ANGOC Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
ANIBAN Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Mamamayan sa Hacienda Dolores
APECO Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Act
2. Causes of Conflicts ......................................................................................................................... 19
3. Intensity of Conflicts ....................................................................................................................... 20
C. Human Rights Violations as Causes and Consequences of Resource Conflict .................................. 21
V. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................... 22
VI. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................ 24
A. Conflicts on Access to and Control of Agricultural Lands ................................................................ 24
1. Farmers Reclaiming Their Land in San Francisco, Agusan Del Sur .............................................. 27
2. Human Rights Violations against Farmers in Hacienda Dolores, Porac, Pampanga ...................... 28
3. Conversion of Farmlands into Real Estate Properties in Gimalas, Balayan, Batangas ................... 31
4. Land Grabbing through Agribusiness Venture Agreements with Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries in
Tagum, Davao del Norte ..................................................................................................................... 32
5. Victory of CARPER in the Bondoc Peninsula, Quezon Province .................................................. 33
B. Conflicts on Access to and Control of Ancestral Domains ................................................................ 36
1. Special Economic Zone APECO and the Agta/Dumagat Ancestral Domain Claim ...................... 39
2. Mamanwa in Barangay San Pablo, Jabonga, Agusan del Norte ..................................................... 40
3. Copper and Gold Mining in Tampakan, South Cotabato ................................................................ 40
4. Corporate Social Responsibility Accomplished in Ambuklao and Binga Dams ............................ 42
9
C. Resource Conflict Involving Municipal Waters ................................................................................. 44
1. Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) Fishing in the Philippines .......................................... 45
2. Impacts of Aquaculture and Tourism in Calatagan, Batangas ........................................................ 46
V. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 48
A. Nature of Conflicts Involving Agrarian Lands .................................................................................. 48
B. Nature of Resource Conflict Involving Ancestral Domains ............................................................... 53
C. Nature of Resource Conflict Involving Municipal Waters ................................................................. 56
D. Human Rights Violations as Cause of Resource Conflict .................................................................. 58
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 60
Specifically, for CSOs: ........................................................................................................................... 60
For the Government: ............................................................................................................................... 61
VII. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 63
10
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
In 2010, the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC) and
its partners in the Land Watch Asia (LWA) campaign developed a framework for monitoring
people’s ownership and access to land and security of land tenure. The objectives of this land
reform monitoring initiative are: 1) to develop capacities of civil society organizations (CSOs)
in undertaking monitoring of land tenure and access to land in order to strengthen evidence-
based advocacy of CSOs; and 2) to enhance platforms, dialogue and common action on land-
related issues among CSOs, governments and intergovernmental organizations. The land
monitoring framework underwent several rounds of consultation and discussion at the regional
level, and an online consultation for gathering inputs. Consensus was arrived at on the set of
common indicators that the countries shall monitor, namely: disputes and evictions, land
grabbing, landownership, tenancy, budgets on land reform, and policies on marginalized groups
(e.g., women and indigenous peoples).
Since its conception in 2010, the CSO Land Reform Monitoring Initiative in the Philippines has
been describing and analyzing people’s access to land and resources by keeping track of the
government’s accomplishments in these areas. In the agrarian sector, monitoring was done
mostly by determining the number of hectares of agricultural land acquired and distributed under
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). In the aquatic sector, the number of
Fishpond Lease Agreements (FLAs) issued were tracked, while for the indigenous community
sector, the number of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) awarded was the
determinant of progress. While it is important to keep track of the accomplishment of targets set
by these reform programs, it is equally worthwhile for the CSOs to monitor as well what the
government usually overlooks.
In the previous land monitoring reports, data on land conflicts at the national level proved to be
difficult to obtain from the government, or were not available. There were no records on
overlapping claims on land, and cases of land-related human rights violations were
11
underreported because they were not closely monitored (PhilDHRRA, 2013). The 2013 Land
Reform Monitoring Report prepared by the Philippine Partnership for the Development of
Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA) revealed that, although CSOs were able to
record cases on tenure-related violence, there were no official government records of it. Further,
although there were data on land-related human rights violations from the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR), these were limited to the cases reported to the police and other judicial
systems (PhilDHRRA, 2013).
In order to formulate effective measures to protect the rights of farmers, fishers and indigenous
communities, understanding the magnitude of tenurial insecurity by monitoring tenure rights
violations would be a good start. After all, the protection of rights and lives of land and water
resource beneficiaries is as important as giving them the right to access and control such
resources.
B. Statement of the Problem
Natural resources, like land and bodies of water, are inevitably essential for the survival of every
human being. We rely on these directly for food, water, shelter and income. For some
communities, their environment is an indispensable part of their identity and culture. However,
according to the UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action (2012), because of
various issues such as “who should have access to and control over resources, and who can
influence decisions regarding their allocation, sharing of benefits, management and rate of use”
(p.8), resources become the subject of conflict. Conflict begins when natural resources are
scarce, the number of people sharing them increases and competition becomes aggravated when
the people or groups sharing the resource have relative power and influence to control the
contested resource (Engel and Korf, 2005). The group that has greater power is able to maximize
their utilization of a resource and flourish, while the group with less power is repressed and
sometimes displaced.
The significance of resource conflict as a phenomenon can be illustrated using the Heidelberg
Institute for International Conflict Research’s (HIIK) Conflict Barometer. HIIK (2015) found
12
that resource conflicts, along with national power conflicts, ranked second in the overall global
frequency of ten conflict items. Of the 674 cases of conflicts recorded globally, 96 cases
(14.24%) are resource conflicts, 159 cases (23.59%) are system/ideology conflicts and 90 cases
(13.35%) are sub-national predominance conflicts. Other items included are conflicts over
territory, secession, decolonization, autonomy, international power and others. The resource
conflict category includes conflicts where actors are pursuing the possession of natural resources,
raw materials, and the profit generated from these. In addition to this, in a study by Global
Witness published in 2014, it was found that the Philippines ranked third among countries with
the highest number of deaths among land and environmental defenders from 2002 to 2013. The
study drawing from the 2012 study of Global Witness entitled “A Hidden Crisis,” covered 35
countries and documented a total of 908 people who had died because of their work on the
environment and land issues (Global Witness, 2014a). There were also 11 people reported to
have disappeared under circumstances of force and presumed dead. The study also found that in
2002-2013 at least two people are killed every week, defending their resource rights (Global
Witness, 2014b). Most of the victims were members of indigenous communities, landless groups
and peasant movements. The primary cause of death among the land and environment defenders
was the victims’ opposition to land grabbing, unfair land ownership, large-scale mining
operations, deforestation, illegal logging or hydroelectric projects.
The study by Global Witness (2014a) also shows that deaths among land and environment
activists were most prevalent in Central and South America, with Brazil having 448 such deaths
and Honduras with 109. In Asia, the Philippines are the most affected country with 67 known
killings mostly due to mining conflicts. Among the 908 total deaths reported in the study, 656 of
these have no information about the suspected killer, 208 have very limited information about
the suspected killer, in 38 deaths the suspected killer has been named, and in only 6 has the
suspect been tried, convicted and punished (Global Witness, 2014b). These figures not only
show the prevalence of killings among people protecting land and environmental rights, but also
the slow progress or absence of justice for the victims.
13
C. Objectives of the Study
Both the studies of HIIK and Global Witness demonstrate how increasing demand and
competition over land leads to violent disputes. In Global Witness’s study, numerous cases were
not even considered because of unavailability of published data and public sources of
information. Thus the number of deaths among land and environment defenders they recorded
may, in fact, be underreported. The prevalence of resource conflicts as described by the said
studies as well as the lack of complete information on the impacts of such conflicts points to the
importance of CSOs stepping in to monitor the phenomenon.
Hence, this 2014 land reform monitoring report aims to contribute to this pool of knowledge
through the following objectives:
1. Identify the nature of resource conflicts occurring in the Philippines among agrarian lands,
municipal waters and ancestral domains through case reports, specifically:
a. actors involved in resource conflicts
b. causes of resource conflicts
c. impacts of resource conflicts
d. intensity of resource conflicts
2. Describe what human rights violations were committed that have resulted to resource
conflicts.
3. Formulate recommendations to contribute to the process of managing and resolving resource
conflicts.
D. Significance of the Study
As the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are nearing their end, new goals are being
formulated following 2015, to complete the unfinished tasks. One lesson learned from the MDG
experience was to include in its design a broad range of stakeholder input (Clark, 2014). As a
result, the national and local context became significant in developing specific targets in each
area in the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). CSOs have now been given a vital role
14
in representing the marginalized groups, as well as in developing and realizing monitoring
indicators for the new agendas to enable measurement of implementation (UN, 2013). They are
also responsible for making sure that governments and businesses act responsibly and make
genuine opportunities for the marginalized. CSOs have thus advocated for the inclusion of land
rights as part of the framework for the post-2015 SDGs. Good land governance is now
recognized as an important aspect in pursuing the SDGs.
As a CSO initiative, this monitoring report of land conflicts will encapsulate the challenges faced
by marginalized groups in the rural areas, specifically farmers, fishers and indigenous peoples, in
securing their land and resource rights—thereby providing local context to the SDG areas. The
present study will then demonstrate the urgency for related agencies to address such challenges
as well.
Conducting a monitoring report anchored on human rights also supports the resolution drafted by
Ecuador and South Africa at the 26th
session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in June
2014. The resolution supported by 20 countries, including the Philippines, leads “to establish an
open-ended intergovernmental working group with the mandate to elaborate an international
legally binding instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with
Respect to Human Rights” (Binding Treaty, n.d., para. 4). This resolution aims to provide an
instrument that clearly identifies the role of transnational corporations in terms of human rights.
The proposed binding treaty will formulate and provide guidelines on the responsibility and
accountability of transnational corporations and business enterprises on the protection of human
rights. This monitoring report will contribute to efforts in supporting the proposed treaty by
providing a review of literature of the tenure-related human rights violations perpetrated by
transnational and local business enterprises, in the context of the Philippines.
At the same time, this land monitoring initiative is part of the national engagement strategy
(NES) of the International Land Coalition (ILC), with the objective of creating conditions for
inclusive and people-centered land governance related policy change.
15
E. Scope and Limitations
The present study focuses on monitoring resource conflicts involving agrarian lands, coastal
waters and ancestral domains. It concentrates on conflicts over resource use, access and control,
while it excludes shelter-related disputes and conflicts over resource use, access and control as a
result of natural calamities. The study makes use of secondary data generated by other CSOs,
government agencies, and media sources. Its literature review is limited to accessible data from
the local level about resource conflicts and land-related violent incidents.
Moreover, as the study illustrates how violation of human rights is both a foundation and a result
of resource conflict, it will not enumerate all possible human rights violations committed that
have resulted to a conflict.
II. METHODOLOGY
To fulfill its objectives, this study collected studies and other secondary materials generated by
CSOs and government agencies reporting cases of land and resource conflicts in the Philippines.
The study described cases of resolved and ongoing conflicts over resource use, access and
control involving farmers, coastal municipalities and indigenous communities.
The study underwent several phases to fulfill its objectives. In phase 1, face-to-face and
electronic consultations were conducted with the Research and Extension Development Office of
the College of Social Work and Community Development of the University of the Philippines
Diliman (UP-CSWCD) as well as the Xavier Science Foundation of Xavier University (XU-
XSF). The said institutions helped in formulating the objectives, design and methodology of the
current study.
Data were gathered through a review of literature of reports and case studies prepared by
government agencies and CSOs. Key informant interviews were conducted with the Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR), National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), and
Philippine Association For Intercultural Development (PAFID).
16
In the second phase of the study, a joint consultation workshop was organized to provide an
opportunity for other CSOs to share their feedback on the preliminary methodology,
recommendations and conclusions of the monitoring report for improvement. After the
workshop, the paper was revised accordingly. The second draft was presented and discussed
during the third quarterly meeting of the Philippine-based members of the International Land
Coalition (ILC). A peer-review ensued with UP-CSWCD and XU-XSF. The final draft was then
presented and discussed in a workshop jointly organized by ANGOC, UP-CSWCD and XU-
XSF, and participated in by government agencies and CSOs.
To fulfill its objectives, the study used both qualitative and quantitative secondary materials.
Various case studies, case reports and organizational statements were consolidated to complete
each story on an incident of resource conflict. These cases were then analyzed to understand the
nature of resource conflicts occurring in the Philippines, identify the perpetrators and victims of
the conflicts, and arrive at the causes, intensity and impacts that these conflicts had. Through
certain case stories in which the resource conflict was resolved, the study identified effective
conflict management and resolution strategies.
III. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The LWA monitoring framework follows a specific process from inputs to impacts as illustrated
in figure 1. This framework was adapted by LWA from Bending (2009) to guide CSOs on areas
for monitoring land reform (Bending as cited by ANGOC, 2014). The inputs refer to laws,
policies and budget allocation governing implementation of reform programs. Outputs are
accomplishments of the implementation, while outcomes are the consequences of the
accomplishment of the processes. The impacts are consequences requiring a higher level of
analysis.
Since the present study focuses on the nature of resource conflicts in the Philippines, the study
concentrated on outcome indicators, like tenure security, land disputes and violence brought by
resource conflicts. The land reform monitoring framework assumes that outcome indicators
17
(such as tenure security and access to land) and impacts (such as food security and poverty
alleviation) are results or consequences of the three preceding indicators and their
implementation. Monitoring the outcomes somehow provides a perspective on the status of
implementation of resource programs. For instance, if the outcome indicators show that people
have security over their access to and control of resources, then it may be assumed that laws and
reform programs are being implemented effectively.
Figure 1. Conceptual Land Reform Monitoring Framework.
Source: (ANGOC, 2014)
IV. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Natural resources are defined as the “actual or potential sources of wealth that occur in a natural
state, such as timber, water, fertile land, wildlife, metals, stones, and hydrocarbons” (UNEP,
2009, p. 7). Their importance is evident given the dependence of various living things upon it,
human beings specifically. It provides us food for consumption, metals for machinery, timber for
shelter and water for survival. For some communities their environment, such as land and bodies
of water, is an irrevocable part of their history, identity and culture. Other than shelter and source
INPUTS
Land Laws, Policies, Public Expenditures
PROCESSES
Agrarian Reform Programs, Resolution
of Disputes, Formalizing of Land
Claims
OUTPUTS
Land Titles. Property Rights, Support
Services
OUTCOMES
Tenure Security, Access to Land
IMPACTS
Food Securty, Poverty Alleviation
18
of income, their beliefs, traditions and way of life are embedded in their environment and taking
it away disrupts their sense of identity. A natural resource, such as land, is also an important
source of power as it has economic, social and emotional importance (United Nations
Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action, 2012a).
However as countries struggle to implement programs aiming to achieve socio-economic
development, natural resources are put in jeopardy. Rapid urbanization, population growth,
unequal access to and limited availability of land, and increasing demand for resources are
factors contributing significantly to initiating and intensifying resource conflict. This section will
discuss the definition of resource conflict, identify types of resource conflicts, the perpetrators,
the intensity of conflict, and enumerate various conflict management strategies to further
understand the context of resource conflicts in the Philippines.
A. Defining Resource Conflict
The value and management of natural resources varies among people as they have different
needs and interests. Some value the conservation of their heritage, some use their land to produce
food for domestic consumption and as a source of income, while some see the economic
opportunities offered by tourism, commercial development and residential use. These
differences in interests contribute to the development and intensity of conflict. For Fisher et al,
conflict is a relationship that occurs when people or different groups believe that they have
different interests and goals (Fisher et al, 2000 as cited in Engel and Korf, 2005). Conflicts are
not necessarily negative relationships, as these can lead to social change and development,
especially in the case of non-violent conflicts where the constituents trust that their governing
structures, society and institutions are capable of managing and resolving incompatible interests
(United Nations Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action, 2012b). Through this
definition, it is clear that resource conflict is brought about by people’s differences in interests
regarding the use and management of resources.
19
B. Nature of Resource Conflict
1. Conflict Actors
Resource conflict being defined as a result of contradicting interests over use and management of
land and other resources implies that the primary actors are those who have differences in goals.
According to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), varying interests among stakeholders
such as local communities, governments, and outside actors could initiate or aggravate conflicts
(2007). Local communities’ lives are deeply involved with their environment as they depend on
it not only for economic opportunities but for culture and identity as well. The government has
the overall authority to manage resources. It has the power to regulate trade and development,
grant licenses and extraction rights, obtain taxes from resource industries, produce and
implement reform programs (USIP, 2007). The government has the capacity to help local
communities acquire and secure their tenurial rights as much as it can give companies rights to
acquire massive land areas for industrial or residential use. Finally, outside parties who have
enough influence over natural resource management such as powerful governments of rich
countries, international organizations, businesses, industries, NGOs and other resource users are
also conflict actors as they take part in initiating, aggravating or resolving resource conflicts
depending on their interests.
2. Causes of Conflicts
As mentioned earlier, the primary cause of resource conflict is when different individuals or
groups of people have varying interests in using and managing resources. And as the population
grows, the number of people with varying interests over resources increases, and competition
over access and control of resources increases as well. This competition can be further
influenced by the scarcity of a natural resource, the extent to which it is shared by two or more
groups, the relative power those groups have and the degree of dependence of these groups on
that natural resource (Engel and Korf, 2005). Scarcity of a resource leads to competition;
however if those who compete have different socio-economic status and relative power and
20
influence, this may mean advantage for one group, while for another group it means loss of
income or displacement. Institutional failure in managing assets and resources also contributes in
aggravating resource conflicts (Engel and Korf, 2005). The lack of policies or poor
implementation of resource management programs leads to unequal distribution of resources and
conflict. Conflicts also arise when stakeholders, especially those who have less power and
influence, are left out during natural resource management (Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, 2000).
3. Intensity of Conflicts
According to Engel and Korf (2005), conflict is a dynamic and interactive social process. Most
conflicts share patterns and stages of development although no two conflicts are identical. As
shown in figure 2 below, there are three stages of conflict: latent, manifest and violent. The latent
stage can be described as a state of hidden or undeveloped social tensions, differences and
disagreements. It can remain this way because of fear, distrust, peer pressures or financial
reasons. It can also develop to the manifest stage, and become a public issue. In this stage, the
differences and disagreements become central to the groups’ dynamics and serve as a driving
force for the mobilization of each other’s interests. The manifest stage can then escalate and
become violent, often producing counter-violence, leading to further escalation.
21
Figure 2. Conflict Stages.
Source: Engel, A. and Korf, B. (2005). Negotiation and Mediation Techniques for
Resource Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:
Rome.
According to Engle and Korf (2005), conflicts should be managed in the latent stage during
which negotiations can easily ensue as the differences among parties are not yet manifested. In
the manifest and violent stages, it would be more difficult to modify a group’s position on a
conflict as it becomes an integral part of their group dynamics.
C. Human Rights Violations as Causes and Consequences of Resource Conflict
For Parlevliet (1999, in Dudouet, V. and Schmelzle, 2010), conflicts can be characterized using
the illustration of an iceberg, which shows how human rights violations can be both causes and
consequences of violent conflicts. In conflicts, symptoms or manifestations such as verbal and
physical abuse, intimidation, disappearances, evictions and degrading treatments are easily
identifiable. Like the tip of an iceberg, the consequences or effects of a conflict are more visible
than their causes. The submerged, usually larger in mass part of the iceberg, symbolizes the
violations of human rights as causes of conflict. The diagram shows the ongoing relationship of
22
violent conflict and human rights. The denial of human rights as a cause of conflict can lead to
further human rights violations.
Figure 2. Human Rights Violations as Causes and Consequences of Violent Conflict
Source: Parlevliet (1999 in Dudouet, V. and Schmelzle, 2010)
V. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Based on the literature cited above, this monitoring report examines cases of resource conflict
among agrarian lands, ancestral domains and municipal waters based on the following:
1. Nature of conflict involving agrarian lands, ancestral domains and municipal waters. The
present study analyzes the attributes of resource conflicts in the Philippines. It covers conflicts
23
involving actors’ struggles to acquire or secure rights to access and control resources under asset
reform programs such as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER), the Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) and the Fisheries Code. Resource actors, as used in this report, are
direct and indirect participants initiating, exacerbating or managing resource conflicts. By
identifying the actors involved in a resource conflict, we are able to understand how these actors
perceive conflict and the mechanisms they use to deal with it. From this, we are able to recognize
their varying interests and pinpoint the causes of conflict. The mechanisms used by the actors to
pursue their motives and manage the conflict likewise enable us to identify the intensity of
conflict. A comprehensive understanding of these attributes is important in devising an
appropriate and effective resolution strategy.
2. Human rights violations as causes and consequences of a resource conflict. From the iceberg
diagram developed by Parlevliet (1999, in Dudouet, V. and Schmelzle, 2010), we are able to
understand how human rights violations can be both causes and consequences of resource
conflict. This study identifies the extent of human rights violations brought about by resource
conflict. Human rights violations, as referred to by this monitoring report, are abuses or
deprivation of basic human rights as described in any Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) treaty or other international human rights laws. This study will also identify how
deprivation and violation of human rights trigger resource conflicts. The usually unnoticed
submerged part of an iceberg is likened to how human rights violations, such as uneven access to
resources and non-inclusive participation in public affairs, actually lead to conflict. This
framework shows that denial of human rights is the result and, simultaneously, the foundation of
conflicts. In this regard, we are made aware of the importance of protection and promotion of
human rights and its significance to people’s access to and control of resources.
24
VI. FINDINGS
A. Conflicts on Access to and Control of Agricultural Lands
In a desk research conducted by Global Witness in 2012, it was found that 711 individuals were
killed worldwide from 2002-2011 defending human rights related to the environment,
specifically involving land and forests. The study found that, in many countries, systematic
collection of information on killings is deficient, as is specialized monitoring at the international
level. On a more significant note, the study found that the Philippines is one of the countries with
the highest reports of land-related killings. From 2002-2011, the Philippines accounted for 50
cases (7.03%) of the total number of killings recorded in 26 countries worldwide, followed by
Colombia with 70 cases (9.84%), Peru with 123 cases (17.30%) and Brazil with 365 cases
(51.33%) (Global Witness, 2012). Moreover, convictions and credible investigations of such
killings are low, thereby empowering oppressors and encouraging further abuse. Concentration
of land ownership favoring the powerful and influential, contested land and forests, large
populations of poor people dependent on land or forests for livelihood, and high awareness levels
of one’s rights are some factors to which the said figures are ascribed.
In an extension of Global Witness’s study, an additional 197 cases of deaths from 2012-2013
were reported, placing the Philippines third among countries with the highest number of deaths
among land and environment defenders (Global Witness, 2014a).
The prevalence of land conflicts in the Philippines and the intensity of their repercussions can
also be seen in the cases of agrarian conflicts filed in the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
and the accomplishment report on Agrarian Legal Services (ALS) of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR).
In 2014 alone, a total of 77 cases of agrarian/land-related conflicts (see Table 1.) were recorded
by the CHR (CHR, 2015a). The highest number of conflicts filed was in Northern Mindanao
with 14 cases, followed by CARAGA and Zamboanga peninsula with 13 and 10 cases,
25
respectively. Moreover, eight cases of eviction/forced eviction (CHR, 2015b) and one case of
harassment (CHR, 2015c) in CARAGA were filed with the CHR. CARAGA is the only region
with reports of eviction and harassment due to land or agrarian-related conflicts filed with the
CHR in 2014. Meanwhile, the CHR (2015d) has recorded three cases of victims killed due to
land or agrarian-related conflicts in Central Luzon and one case in CARAGA. The reported cases
were filed between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2014. As noted by the CHR, the data may
contain multiple case types in one complaint filed, which means that there may be more than one
victim in a case. Also, the reported case may be land related, but may not specifically constitute
an agrarian conflict.
Table 1. Breakdown of Number of Agrarian/Land-related Cases of Conflicts Filed with the
Commission on Human Rights in 2014 (CHR, 2015a).
Region Total number of complaint filed
Ilocos 8
Central Luzon 4
CALABARZON 7
Western Visayas 4
Zamboanga Peninsula 10
Northern Mindanao 14
Davao 9
SOCCKSARGEN 8
CARAGA 13
TOTAL 77
Source: Commission on Human Rights. (2015a). Breakdown of Number of Victims Killed in Agrarian/Land Conflict
Related Complaints/Cases Filed with the CHR. Quezon City
On the other hand, the Agrarian Legal Services accomplishment report shows that many cases of
disputes or conflicts are being processed or have been resolved by the DAR. Although the
department is able to describe the need of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) for legal
assistance, it does not specifically identify in which specific situations they require such
assistance the most. It does not describe the nature of conflict in detail, nor identify who the
perpetrators are and indicate the number of victims. The accomplishment report likewise does
26
not illustrate the types of conflicts that the DAR resolves, to what extent these conflicts violate
victims’ tenurial rights and if there is violence or harassment involved.
In an interview with DAR’s Legal Affairs Assistant Secretary, Atty. Justin Vincent La Chica, it
was explained that monitoring and eliminating or resolving land conflicts in the Philippines is
not the major role of the Department. DAR only passively records cases of land conflicts that are
reported to them. According to La Chica, there are three ways DAR is able to monitor cases of
agrarian-related conflicts: (i) cases that are filed with DAR; (ii) cases where DAR provides free
legal assistance to beneficiaries who seek it commonly because of a landowner’s resistance to
implement the agrarian reform program; and (iii) cases where mediation is sought between
beneficiaries commonly contesting who is the rightful beneficiary or how many hectares of land
they may actually acquire.
The agrarian legal service of DAR was primarily clustered into two forms of service; the
agrarian legal assistance and the adjudication of cases (see Table 2). The first provides assistance
in terms of amicable mediation of disputes as an alternative strategy to avoid conflicts reaching
the courts. It also provides legal assistance by providing ARBs with DAR lawyers before judicial
and quasi-judicial bodies, and resolving agrarian law implementation (ALI) cases. Meanwhile,
the adjudication of cases involves resolving cases of agrarian-related conflicts by the DAR
adjudication board.
On average, DAR processes and resolved 51,127 ALI cases in the last five years, represented
1,642 and 16,568 ARBs in judicial courts and quasi-judicial courts, respectively, since 2011,
mediated and reconciled 47,870 agrarian disputes via alternative strategies since 2012, and
settled 21,060 cases in the DAR adjudication board. Although these accomplishments of DAR
are commendable, the number of conflicts they settle each year is alarming and ambiguous.
Thus, a more detailed report of these numbers must be sought to know the magnitude of the
disputes involved.
Recognizing this lack, this monitoring report narrates selected actual experiences of farmers and
agrarian reform beneficiaries struggling to acquire their land or secure their right to tenure.
27
Table 2. Agrarian Legal Services Accomplishment of DAR from 2010 to 2014.
Agrarian Legal Services 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Agrarian Legal Assistance 67, 894
Resolution of ALI cases 52,075 56,338 37,790 56,428 53,005
ARB Representation in the Judicial Courts 4,203 1,078 648 639
ARB Representation in Quasi-Judicial
Courts
14,787 16,930 18,674 15,884
Mediation of Agrarian Disputes 44,704 45,258 54,646
Adjudication of Cases 19,409 19,006 23,432 21,640 21,816
Source: (DAR, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015)
1. Farmers Reclaiming Their Land in San Francisco, Agusan Del Sur
On 9 August 2014, Armando Campos, a Manobo and an agrarian reform beneficiary, was shot to
death in Barangay Ebro, San Francisco in Agusan Del Sur on his way to participate in an activity
to reclaim their tenurial rights over an almost 4,000 ha piece of land (Philippine Alliance of
Human Rights Advocates, 2014). According to the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights
Advocates (PAHRA) (2014), the suspect in the killing, Anecito Ortiz, is the manager of the
Filipinas Palm Oil Plantation Inc. (FPPI), the biggest palm oil operator in Mindanao. Ortiz was
said to be accompanied by Arnold Guloran and one aliased as Junie Maltos.
According to a study by the Center for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR), the land
where palm oil industries are operating in CARAGA region was previously inhabited by
indigenous communities and farmers (2012). The displacement of settlers and the conversion of
land into palm oil plantations occurred during the Martial Law era. Through focus group
discussions, CTUHR (2012) found out that a so-called “Lost Command” group, believed to be
private armies of palm oil operators NDC-Guthrie (now FPPI), killed farmers and their families
to clear out any claimants of the land they were about to occupy. Some farmers were forced to
sell their lands while others moved out of their villages to escape the harassment. However, some
were constrained to stay in their lands and become farm workers because they had nowhere else
to go. The farm workers who stayed were deprived of appropriate wages, benefits and the right
28
to security of tenure (Asia Monitor Resource Centre, 2013). In 1988, when the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) was passed, the palm oil plantation areas were subjected to land
reform. The land was ordered to be transferred to the beneficiaries through a collective CLOA
(AMRC, 2013). The beneficiaries then formed a cooperative and leased their land to FPPI for the
period of 1990 to 2009, which was later extended until 2032 (AMRC, 2013).
On 11 July 2014, about a month before the said murder, Campos and other members of the NDC
Guthrie Estates Inc. Multipurpose Cooperative (NGEI-MPC) gave notice to the FPPI
management of the termination of their lease contract which had started in 1990. Campos was
among the 937 NGEI-MPC agrarian reform beneficiaries aspiring to regain control of their land
(Focus on the Global South, 2014). With an annual rental rate of PhP 635 per ha and PhP 1,800
share from net sales, the agrarian reform beneficiaries could no longer wait until 2032 to exercise
control of their land (Focus on the Global South, 2014).
2. Human Rights Violations against Farmers in Hacienda Dolores, Porac,
Pampanga
“Hindi makapasok sa sariling binubungkal na lupa yung mga magsasaka. Sa ngayon, sila’y
naghihirap na. Wala silang makain dahil nga halos ang trabaho nila ay magsasaka lamang at
nagkataon, itong sinasaka nila, eh, binakuran pa ng kompanya at hindi pinapapasok at
maraming security guard ang humaharang sa kanila.”
-Kagawad Cornelio “Ka Cornie” Pineda, Porac, Pampanga (in Focus on the Global South et al.,
2015b).
For 50 years, about 300 farming families have been tilling the 2,000-ha (AMGL, 2014)
agricultural land in Hacienda Dolores in Porac, Pampanga. Out of this total area, they are only
requesting 761.1 ha for their portion of land (Pabillo and Tria-Tiron, 2014). However, in 2005,
their productivity was interrupted when the DAR exempted their land from agrarian reform
coverage as it was deemed unproductive and unfit for agricultural use (Focus on the Global
South, et al., 2015b). Its proximity to the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway and the tourism
hotspot, Mt. Pinatubo volcanic crater-lake, makes it attractive for big developers to convert into
residential, commercial and recreational areas, which would entail massive land conversion and
29
displacement (Focus on the Global South, et al., 2015b). After being deemed unfit for
production, the land was claimed by Leonardo-Lachenal-Leoncio Holdings (LLL) and FL
Property Management Corp. (FL), both partner corporations of Ayala Land, Inc. (Focus on the
Global South, et al., 2015b). LLL started claiming 298 ha of land in 2005 while, in 2007, FL
Corp. started claiming 456 ha of land including ancestral lands of Ayta communities (AMGL,
2013).
By 2015, farmers were unable to harvest their produce because the so-called “developers” had
barricaded the property and installed security personnel, some of whom were armed, to keep the
farmers away (Focus on the Global South, et al., 2015a). The farmers had made several requests
for DAR to conduct an ocular inspection in order for their land to be covered by the land reform
program, but nobody came to inspect (Focus on the Global South, et al., 2015b). Within the
barricaded area, trees were cut down by the developers’ personnel to show that the land is
unfertile. A new park called Sandbox and a new community called Alviera in Porac have already
been constructed in the area. The farmers, who rely solely on income through farming, have been
experiencing difficulties and hunger ever since the claimants came (Focus on the Global South,
et al., 2015b). They are being threatened with bogus criminal accusations. They fear for their
lives as life-threatening incidents have occurred among their peers.
Antonio “Apung Tony” Tolentino was the barangay chairperson of Hacienda Dolores leading the
resistance against the companies displacing the farmers and depriving them of their farmlands.
He was initially arrested on 13 January 2014, with his son Ener, due to a confrontation which
turned violent between farmers and the private security installed by the land developers in the
area (Focus on the Global South, et al., 2015a). The land developers’ security personnel fired
gunshots at the farmers, resulting in the death of Armando Lumibao Padino, a member of
Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Mamamayan sa Hacienda Dolores (ANIBAN) and injured father and
son, Noel and Raymond Tumali on 12 January 2014 (Punto!, 2014). The next day, Apung Tony
and Ener were arrested and posted bail on charges of slight physical injuries and grave threats
(KARAPATAN, 2014). Although Apung Tony did not initiate the violence, he was charged with
various crimes including murder, which were false according to the residents of the area
(KARAPATAN, 2014). On another note, according to the Alliance for the Advancement of
30
People’s Rights (KARAPATAN), later on 16 April 2014, Apung Tony was arrested again by 30
members of the San Francisco City and Porac City PNP in combat gear, on carnapping charges.
He was also charged with kidnapping with physical injuries, administrative complaint for grave
misconduct, oppression, abuse of authority and acts prejudicial to public service
(KARAPATAN, 2014). Two days after Apung Tony’s arrest, the policemen came back to
Hacienda Dolores and conducted an operation charging all of Apung Tony’s sons, Tirso, Ener,
Ed, Erwin and Eddie, with carnapping but no arrests were made. Residents informed
KARAPATAN that along with the policemen conducting the operation who came in combat
gear without nameplates, were some security personnel of LLL and the Porac PNP Chief Miro
In a separate incident on May 2, 2014, Menelao “Ka Melon” Barcia, a Barangay Councilor and a
farmer leader of ANIBAN monitoring Apung Tony’s charges and helping unite the farmers to
defend their land, was killed by unidentified armed men while on his way home with his wife
and niece (KARAPATAN, 2014). His wife, Maria, also suffered gunshot wounds. According to
an interview with Arthur Barcia conducted by Focus on the Global South et al. (2015a), the
assailants failed in their attempt to take certain documents from the bag of Ka Melon’s niece. He
also said that, prior to Ka Melon’s murder, there were talks that he would be attending a meeting
about the conflict in Poracay, Pampanga. Seeking justice for the death of the farmer leader and
the trauma it has caused his wife as well as his constituents is difficult, as witnesses are afraid to
testify against the assailants. They fear that they will end up with the same fate as Ka Melon if
they talk. The frequency of killings and harassments occurring in Hacienda Dolores is alarming,
but cases are still unresolved because no suspects have been identified and witnesses are afraid to
testify.
These are only the latest reported incidents of violence related to the arrival of LLL, FL and
Ayala Land, Inc. and the displacement of farmers in Hacienda Dolores. Earlier in 2013, 30
ANIBAN members were charged with grave threats, grave coercion and usurpation of real rights
in real property by the security personnel of LLL (KARAPATAN, 2014). This was because,
during an assembly of ANIBAN at which members were discussing strategies to stop the
developers from taking their farm lands, LLL security guards tried to construct barricades around
the farmers’ lands. The farmers were able to stop them, however, and the guards failed to present
31
a legal permit proving their right to barricade the area upon the demand of village councilors Ka
Melon and Ka Cornie (KARAPATAN, 2014). The guards were forced to leave but they
retaliated months later by pressing charges against the farmers.
From 30 to 31 October 2013, a National Fact-Finding and Solidarity Mission (NFFSM), led by
AMGL, ANIBAN, KARAPATAN-Central Luzon, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP),
and Anakpawis Party-list, was conducted to investigate the land grabbing and displacement cases
in Porac, Pampanga perpetrated by LLL, FL Corp. and Ayala Land, Inc. (AMGL, 2013). In LLL
and FL Corp.’s claiming of 754 ha of land, the NFFSM group documented on 4 November 2011,
26 cases of destruction and divestment of properties affecting 21 farmers, 5 peasant women, and
causing the mass arrest of 12 farmers who were illegally arrested and detained. The NFFSM
group also documented cases of harassment, threat and intimidation where farmers were coerced
into signing waivers yielding their land rights voluntarily. On 24 August 2013, 20 unidentified
men surrounded the house of Ruben Zalta, a 79 year-old farmer cultivating 10.5 ha of land in
Hacienda Dolores, and coerced him and his wife, Teresita, to sign a waiver of voluntary
surrender of their land.
The struggle faced by farmers of Hacienda Dolores vividly portrays how large corporations are
favored because of their promises of profit far beyond anything produced by small-scale farmers.
Farmers and movement leaders have been imprisoned, intimidated, harassed and killed but
justice seems nowhere to be found. Suspects for the cases of murder have not been identified.
Former residents of the hacienda now fear for their lives and their future as they toil to find other
sources of income because their land has become inaccessible.
3. Conversion of Farmlands into Real Estate Properties in Gimalas, Balayan,
Batangas
In Gimalas, Balayan, Batangas subdivisions and other development projects have replaced once
productive farmlands. One project site, which was originally a retention area for landowners who
leased the land to farmers for 25% of their income from harvests, was sold to Empire East Land
Holdings, Inc. (EELHI), a company of Megaworld, to turn into a 31-ha Science Park and port
(CARRD, 2014). For the sale to occur, the landowners needed the farmers to waive their rights
32
and access to their land. The farmers were offered PhP 350,000 to PhP 550,000 per ha to leave
their farms and an additional PhP 400,000 to construct their homes in a relocation site to be
provided (CARRD, 2014). They were also promised jobs in the development projects being
constructed, which made the offer more enticing.
Although the figures seemed fair, these did not match the constant income that the farmers would
obtain from future annual harvests. Moreover, because the farmers were not an organized group,
some had limited negotiating capacity, thus resulting in varied compensation packages. Some
were able to receive 140 m2
lots while others only received 35 m2
(CARRD, 2014). Although the
process was peaceful and the farmers were compensated, it should be noted that the farmers were
bombarded with various enticing promises that made the offer seem an easy solution to their
issues, such as fear about not holding Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) over their
lands as well as growing debts. While the farmers may initially enjoy the compensation that they
have received, it is actually insufficient to ensure their long-term welfare. Now landless, they are
not able to farm, having lost that most important asset sustaining their lives.
4. Land Grabbing through Agribusiness Venture Agreements with Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries in Tagum, Davao del Norte
In Tagum, Davao del Norte, 724 agrarian reform beneficiaries belonging to the Hijo Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative (HARBCO) lost control of their land as their collective CLOA
for 570 ha was subjected to a local agribusiness venture (AR Now!, 2014). Their land was
originally part of the 1,469 ha property owned by Hijo Plantation, Inc. (HPI) which was offered
by HPI for coverage under CARP through a voluntary offer to sell. The property, primarily used
for production of export quality bananas, was valued at P 1.03 million per ha by the courts (AR
Now!, 2014).
In 1998, HARBCO entered into a 10-year Banana Sales and Marketing Agreement (BSMA) with
HPI. The HARBCO membership was divided over this contract agreement as some ARBs were
not willing to enter into a BSMA with HPI. According to a focus group discussion conducted by
The Peoples’ Campaign for Agrarian Reform Network, Inc. (AR Now!) with the officers of
HARBCO in 2014, the divide among HARBCO members occurred partly because those who
were not willing to enter the agreement were in control of around 40% of the land, harvesting
33
and selling their produce to DOLE-Stanlifico. This disagreement led to violent confrontations
between the two factions of HARBCO until April 1999, when a reconciliation process resulted in
the re-joining of some anti-BSMA HARBCO ARBs back into the main group. By June 1999,
HPI gave its rights over the BSMA to Lapanday Foods Corporation (LAPANDAY). This was
followed by the most violent clash between the two factions, causing the death of two HPI
employees and injury of about 30 ARBs (AR Now!, 2014).
In 2000-2003, HARBCO experienced growth through the BSMA. However, this was disrupted
in 2004 when farm production decreased allegedly due to an aerial spraying sabotage (AR Now!,
2014). In 2008, LAPANDAY took over the operations of the cooperative’s farm as HARBCO’s
liabilities to LAPANDAY increased, resulting to a total debt of PhP 115 million. This transition
pushed through as part of the BSMA, where LAPANDAY, as agreed, would have the right to
take over and handle farm operations of HARBCO if crop success is jeopardized by HARBCO’s
failure to follow LAPANDAY’s prescribed cultural practices. In LAPANDAY’s take over, a
framework executed by both parties established the guidelines to be followed. The take-over was
set for two years, subject to extension should HARBCO remain unable to pay its debt. As of
2012, their debt had grown to PhP 290.8 million (AR Now!, 2014). Some ARBs who were not
employed by LAPANDAY as farm workers were forced to find income elsewhere, not even
being able to set foot on their land, except within the housing areas.
5. Victory of CARPER in the Bondoc Peninsula, Quezon Province
Bondoc Peninsula is located at the southernmost part of Quezon province. Since the 1950s, copra
has been the major crop, and agriculture the main way of life in the area (Carranza, 2011). In a
1989 study by the Asian Institute of Management, it was found that the concentration of land
ownership in the 1970s was heavily skewed, with 44% of the area’s agricultural lands being
owned by 1.1% of the population (as cited by Carranza, 2011). By 1988, the year CARP took
effect, the biggest haciendas in the area were Hacienda Reyes (estimated at 8,000-12,000 ha), the
Uy-claimed areas (about 3,500 ha) and the Hacienda Matias (2,500 ha) (Carranza, 2011). As the
farmers learned about their rights under CARP and began to organize, violence occurred
incessantly in the area. The landlords hired armed personnel to harass and intimidate the
peasants, who were forcibly displaced, their houses and crops destroyed, and their farm animals
34
taken. Peasant leaders were attacked, killed, or charged with made-up allegations. By the end of
2009, the landlords filed a total of 326 criminal cases against 228 leaders and members of the
Kilusang Magbubukid ng Bondoc Peninsula (KMBP), the district-wide federation of 48 hacienda
organizations in the peninsula (Carranza, 2011). With the concentration of land ownership and
the evident intimidation of peasants in the peninsula, Bondoc is unmistakably a “hotbed” of
agrarian reform conflicts.
In 1999, 155 ha of land owned by the Reyes family were distributed through the peasant
movement (Carranza, 2011). This success gave peasants hope that land-ownership is possible
under the agrarian reform program. By 2009, more than 10,000 ha of agricultural land producing
coconuts were collectively controlled by 3,800 family members of KMBP (Carranza, 2011). In
October 2012, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) urged the Philippine government
through DAR to uphold the rights of the landless farmers of Hacienda Matias by implementing
CARP and ending human rights violations perpetuated by the landowners (FIAN International,
n.d., para. 28). In June 2014, the Office of the President declared coverage and redistribution of
1,829 ha of coconut lands in San Francisco, Quezon under CARP (FIAN International, n.d., para.
50). By the end of 2014, 312 tenants were given a maximum of three ha of land each, from the
639 ha portion of Hacienda Matias, while 102 tenants were given a total of 190 ha from the
estate owned by Juanito Tan, also in San Francisco, Quezon (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2014).
In spite of the success of the peasant movement in acquiring their right to land, peasants continue
to suffer harassment from landowners. Up until February 2015, CLOA holders in Hacienda
Matias in the villages of Butanglad and Don Juan Vercelos were prohibited by the hired security
personnel of the landowners to harvest the copra produced in the land awarded to them (Mallari,
2015a). Maribel Luzara, president of KMBP, told Inquirer Southern Luzon that most of the
agrarian reform beneficiaries were forced to leave behind their copra produce to avoid facing
criminal charges (Mallari, 2015a). Instead, the landowner sold the copra and gave farmers only a
third of the total price.
In April 2015, the farmers demanded from DAR the completion of land survey processes in an
attempt to end harassments in the area (FIAN International, n.d., para. 56). Luckily for the 288
35
uninstalled agrarian reform beneficiaries of Hacienda Matias, DAR came through to ensure the
assertion of their rights (Rural Poor Institute for Land and Human Rights Services, Inc., 2015).
During the first attempt to install ARBs in May 2015, they were accompanied by representatives
from DAR, the Department of National Defense (DND), the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD), the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), the CHR and the PNP
to help take down the barbed wire and steel gates installed by the landowners prohibiting farmers
to enter their land (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2014). However, this was unsuccessful as the
representatives from the different sectors only issued warning notices to the Hacienda Matias
landowners’ security personnel (Mallari, 2015b). The installation was interrupted because the
gate was blocked with drums and a herd of cattle by the hacienda workers (Mallari, 2015b).
Victory was only attained when Undersecretary for Legal Affairs Luis Pangulayan and other
DAR officials and representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of
Interior and Local Governance (DILG), DSWD, CHR, municipal agrarian reform officials and
the court sheriff, accompanied by 200 policemen and army soldiers arrived on 2 July 2015
(Mallari, 2015b). They demolished the concrete and steel barriers that had been constructed by
the landowners and resumed the formal installation of 283 agrarian reform beneficiaries (Mallari,
2015b). Moreover, Guillermo Catandihan, Hacienda Matias’ overseer and workers’ leader, was
arrested together with his brother Aladin Sr. and nephew Aladin Jr. for obstruction of CARP
implementation (Mallari, 2015b).
This situation proves that acquiring title to land does not guarantee security of tenure. Despite
beneficiaries holding legal documents proving their right to access and control land, they were
still barred by powerful landowners unwilling to give up their land despite lawful acquisition.
Land reform does not end with giving out titles to peasants. Continuous protection of their rights
should be ensured as well. These cases also demonstrate that, if government institutions would
coordinate and perform their responsibilities, implementation of the law and the protection of
peoples’ land rights are possible.
36
B. Conflicts on Access to and Control of Ancestral Domains
From 2009-2012, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) recorded seven
clusters of IP rights violations/IPRVs (as shown in figure 4). “Civil and political rights” include
IPRVs involving extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances, tortures, murders and
homicides. “Complaints on Ancestral Domains Rights” are IPRVs related to encroachments,
displacement due to conflicts with settlers, development activities, and demolitions. It also
includes violation of rights to clean environment. IPRVs on “militarization and private armed
groups” refer to violations brought about by displacement and/or harassment due to military
operations, paramilitary groups and private armed groups. “Benefit sharing” includes violations
due to distribution and misappropriation of royalties, complaints on the implementation of
agreements, and complaints related to misunderstandings regarding MOAs. Notice that the
second most frequently recurring complaint recorded by NCIP are IPRVs related to ancestral
domains rights.
Figure 4. Indigenous Peoples' Rights Violations Complaints per Cluster (2009-2012).
Source: “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Practice and Quick Response for IP Rights Violations: A Human Rights
Report of the 5th
NCIP-CEB” (2012)
39.83
15.58 6.93
4.33
14.72
3.46 15.15
Indigenous People's Rights Violations Complaints Per Cluster (2009-2012)
Civil and Political Rights
Ancestral Domains Rights
Militarization and Private ArmedGroups
Benefit Sharing
Free, Prior and Informed Consent(FPIC) issues
Complaints on MandatoryRepresentative
Complaints against NCIP Staff andother Government Agencies
37
Moreover, table 3 below shows a detailed version of NCIP’s data on IPRVs, indicating how
many complaints are recorded per region. It can be gleaned that Region XIII has the greatest
number of complaints and Regions V and VIII have no record at all. More significantly, it shows
that from 2009-2012, NCIP had recorded 68 cases of ancestral domains rights violations. This
cluster accounts for 15.58% of the total number of complaints related to IPRVs recorded for this
sector. It also indicates that Region XIII accounts for majority of the complaints related to
ancestral domains rights violations recorded.
Table 3. Number of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Violations Complaints per Region from
2009-2012.
Type of
Complaint
Number of Complaints Per Region CAR I II III IV V VI &
VII
VIII IX X XI XII XIII Total
Civil and
political Rights
1 4 6 1 9 23 10 19 19 92
Ancestral
Domains Rights
1 3 6 6 2 2 6 1 5 36 68
Militarization
and Private
Armed Groups
1 1 2 5 8 17
Benefit Sharing 1 2 2 1 2 3 11
FPIC Issues 3 3 7 10 5 4 32
Complaints on
Mandatory
Representative
1 2 5 8
Complaints
against NCIP
staff and other
Government
Agencies
1 1 9 10 6 14 41
Total 7 1
0
1
3
13 2 3
1
51 21 32 89 269
Source: “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Practice and Quick Response for IP Rights Violations: A Human Rights
Report of the 5th
NCIP-CEB” (2012)
Moreover, table 4 shows the alleged violators of indigenous peoples’ rights as recorded by the
NCIP in 2012. It can be gleaned that from 2009-2012, IP rights violations are mostly committed
38
by armed groups and militia with 83 cases recorded, followed by mining corporations,
plantations, hydro corporations, farmers’ associations, universities, communication projects,
business establishments and resorts with 70 cases of IPRVs recorded. It should also be noted that
IP rights violations are also committed by government agencies, military, police and security
forces and even other indigenous peoples, whether clans or individuals.
Table 4. Alleged Violators of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights (2009-2012).
Perpetrators Number of Cases Percentage
Armed Group/Militia 83 33.47%
Mining Corporations, Plantations,
Hydro Corporations, Farmers’
Associations, Universities,
Communication Projects, Business
Establishments, and Resorts
70 28.26%
Government Agencies 50 20.16%
Military, Police and Security
Forces
22 8.87%
Indigenous Peoples (Clans or
Individuals)
15 6.05%
Non-Indigenous Peoples / Ranch
Owners
5 2.02%
Unidentified 3 1.21% Source: “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Practice and Quick Response for IP Rights Violations: A Human Rights
Report of the 5th NCIP-CEB” (2012)
From the 2012 report of NCIP, it can be concluded that the most frequently occurring indigenous
peoples’ rights violations are abuses against civil and political rights and ancestral domains
rights. Region XIII has the greatest number of complaints followed by Regions X and XII, while
there is no record of complaints in Region V and VIII. Finally, these IPRVs are perpetrated by
armed groups or militia, mining corporations, plantations, hydro corporations, farmers’
associations, universities, communication projects, business establishments, resorts, government
agencies, military, police and security forces and even other indigenous peoples, clans or
individuals. In monitoring and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples, it should be noted that
these are the violations they should be protected from in the said areas, as well as from the
identified perpetrators. Having this information on hand is helpful in more effectively monitoring
and resolving IP rights violations.
39
1. Special Economic Zone APECO and the Agta/Dumagat Ancestral Domain Claim
In an unpublished case study by De Vera and Libre (2015), the experiences of the Agta/Dumagat
in Casiguran, Aurora upon the legislation in 2010 of Republic Act 10083—also known as the
Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Act (APECO)–were described. Initially, it was
through Republic Act 7916 or the Special Economic Zone of 1995 that the transformation of
selected areas into highly developed agro-industrial, tourist/recreational, commercial, banking,
investment, and financial centers was legislated. It was through RA 7916 that in 2010, APECO
was approved, making way for the establishment of a special economic zone and free port in
Aurora (De Vera and Libre, 2015).
According to De Vera and Libre (2015), in the course of implementation of this Act, around 250
Agta/Dumagat and over a thousand non-Agta families in five barangays of Casiguran were
affected. The said Act aims to convert a total of 13,852 ha of rice lands, coconut plantations,
forests, coastal areas and human settlements in five barangays of Casiguran into an industrial
complex—an economic zone and free port complete with industrial parks, airport, hotels, ship
anchorage and recreational facilities (De Vera and Libre, 2015).
The proponents of the said law continue to insist that rights of indigenous communities were not
violated by denying the existence of indigenous communities in the affected areas. Because of
APECO, the remaining Agta/Dumagat are facing impending extinction as their population is
declining by 40%, according to Headland (as cited by De Vera and Libre, 2015). They suffer
from malnutrition and various diseases because they are losing important traditional food
components from the forest and coast. Continuous influx of migrants also contributes to their
marginalization. APECO is in violation of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) as the
Agta/Dumagat ancestral domain in the San Ildefonso Peninsula was taken over without the
proper consultation and the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from the IPs as mandated by
IPRA (De Vera and Libre, 2015). APECO further hinders the recognition of ancestral domains
that the Agta/Dumagat submitted way back in 1995. Lastly, their claim is further weakened as
group polarization ensues among IPs, where some prominent leaders have sided with APECO
and endorse its acceptability.
40
2. Mamanwa in Barangay San Pablo, Jabonga, Agusan del Norte
For the Mamanwa of Dinarawan, land and water are more than just sources of food and income.
They, along with other indigenous communities, consider themselves as an integral part of the
ecosystem, interacting with it and with one another. They see the significance of their
environment in shaping their spiritual and cultural traditions. This harmonious relationship with
the environment was disrupted when the Mamanwa community learned of the impending mining
operations of Mindoro Resources Ltd. (MRL), a Canadian mining company exploring nickel,
copper and gold in the Philippines (De Vera, 2014).
The 8,000-ha ancestral domain of the Mamanwa indigenous community composed of 67
households covers terrestrial and lakeshore areas (De Vera, 2014). This community comprises
the majority of the population of Sitios Dinarawan and Bunga in Barangay San Pablo, Jabonga,
Agusan del Sur. Their settlement covers Lake Mainit, the fourth largest lake in the Philippines,
and the forests of Mt. Hilong-hilong and Mt. Mabalao (De Vera, 2014). Meanwhile, the mining
tenement given to MRL covers the areas of Mt. Hilong-hilong, a key biodiversity area (KBA)
spanning four provinces and 20 municipalities, including Jabonga and Lake Mainit, which is also
a KBA candidate and a Conservation Priority Area (CPA) (De Vera, 2014).
In 2011, the Mamanwa community filed a complaint before the Compliance Adviser
Ombudsman (CAO) of the International Finance Corporation, one of MRL’s major shareholders,
to address the entrance of MRL employees into the sacred grounds of the Mamanwas without
their FPIC (De Vera, 2014). The local government of Jabonga actively supports and promotes
the operation of MRL in the municipality, encouraging the Mamanwa community to allow the
mining operation to proceed with the promise of royalty payments and job opportunities that will
be available to them once it starts operating. This and the lack or incomprehensibility of
information on the nature of MRL’s operations and its impacts on the environment triggered the
division within the Mamanwa community.
3. Copper and Gold Mining in Tampakan, South Cotabato
In Mindanao, four provinces (South Cotabato, Saranggani, Davao del Sur and Sultan Kudarat)
are under threat as the operation of an estimated 10,000-ha mining area approaches (UNHRC,
2014). According to a written statement presented by Europe-Third World Centre (CETIM) and
41
Franciscans International at the 26th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations
Human Rights Council on 6 June 2014, the Tampakan Copper-Gold Project is the seventh largest
undeveloped copper mine in the world, and will be the largest copper-gold mine in South East
Asia once it becomes operational. Its ownership has recently been acquired by Filipino-owned
Alsons Prime Investment Corporation from Anglo-Swiss Glencore Plc (Philippine Alliance of
Human Rights Advocates, 2015). It is operated by a local subsidiary, Sagittarius Mines Inc.
(SMI). From SMI’s environmental impact assessment conducted in 2011, its operation will