INTRODUCTION

ABSTRACT
The primary goal of this study was to examine the text of The Indigenous
Peoples Right Act of 1997 (IPRA) and determine how it may be used to advance
and defend the rights of indigenous people. It concentrated on discussing key
aspects of IPRA, including its relation with the Regalian Doctrine, as well as the
right of indigenous people to their ancestral domains. The information gathered
was based on in-depth analysis of studies and literature related to the rights of
indigenous people, using books and online articles as reliable and quick sources of
information.
With the aid of information about IPRA, Indigenous People, their statuses,
and problems relating to Indigenous People's rights, analysis and conclusions were
made. The analysis and findings were presented in accordance with the study's
goals.

The Regalian Doctrine

The Regalian Doctrine is a legal fiction from Spanish colonial times known
as "jura regalia" and claimed to apply to all Spanish colonial holdings. The
Regalian Doctrine is more specifically the feudal rule that all private land titles
must come from the Spanish crown, who holds the underlying title, either directly
or indirectly. Resources and lands that have not been granted by the Crown
continue to be in the public domain, where only the sovereign has rights.
According to this theory, private land titles must typically be traced back to some
express or implied grant from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American
Colonial Government, and then the Philippine Republic. The phrase broadly refers
to royal rights, or those that the King has as a result of his prerogatives.
According to the Laws of the Indies, the state's power of dominium—which
was cited in the Cruz v. DENR case—allows it to possess or acquire property. The
early Spanish decrees endorsing the feudal theory of jura regalia were built on this
foundation. Through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas, the Spaniards
first introduced the "Regalian Doctrine" or jura regalia, a Western legal theory, to
the nation.
The Spanish Crown's policy toward the Philippine Islands was established
by the Laws of the Indies in the following provision: "We, having acquired full
sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands, territories, and possessions not
heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still
pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are
held without proper and true deeds of grant be restored to us as they belong to us,
in order that after reserving before all what to us or to our viceroys, audiencias,
and governors may seem necessary for public squares, ways, pastures, and
commons in those places which are peopled, taking into consideration not only
their present condition, but also their future and their probable increase, and after
distributing to the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage,
confirming them in what they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the
rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we
may wish.”
Spain gained control of the Philippines through "discovery" and conquest.
As a result, the Spanish Crown acquired exclusive dominion over all lands. By
granting royal grants and concessions to Spanish citizens, both military and
civilian, the Spanish government assumed control of the land distribution. Private
land titles could only be obtained from the government through purchase or one of
the many types of Crown land grants (Cruz v. DENR).
According to the Regalian Doctrine, the State owns all lands that are in the
public domain, is the source of any claims to ownership, and is responsible for
maintaining such patrimony. The 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions all adopted
the doctrine in a consistent manner. All lands are assumed to belong to the State if
they don't otherwise appear to be in obvious private ownership. All land that has
not been purchased or granted from the government belongs to the State as an
unalienable part of the public domain.
It is necessary for the State to make the decision regarding the disposition of
public domain lands for private ownership. The government, acting as the State's
agent, has the full authority of the persona in law to decide who will be the
preferred recipients of public lands and the conditions of their eligibility, including
whether or not to erect barriers to their performance of otherwise normal
ownership duties.
 The Indigenous People’s Rights Act

The Philippine law known as the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997
(IPRA), also known as Republic Act No. 8371, recognizes and advances the rights
of indigenous cultural groups and indigenous peoples in the country.

History
In the case of Carino v. Insular Government from the year 1909, the court
acknowledged the long-term private ownership of the land by an indigenous
member of the cultural communities, which is known in law as "native title." In
1919, the Second Public Land Act was passed, recognizing the right of ownership
of any native of the country who, since July 4, 1907, or prior thereto, has
continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest, a tract of agricultural public land. This case paved the way
for the government to review the so-called "native title" or "private right."
The government would then on pass multiple laws for the protection and
promotion of these rights such as Commonwealth Act No.141 which provides that
members of the national cultural minorities who have resided on agricultural,
public land since July 4, 1955, are entitled to recognition of ownership whether or
not the land has been certified as "disposable."; Bureau of Forestry Administrative
Order No. 11 of 1970 which made all forest concessions were made subject to the
private rights of cultural minorities within the area as evidenced by their
occupation existing at the time a license is issued by the government; and many
others.
Despite the many decrees passed, they still fail to encompass all the needs of
the indigenous people primarily because of failure in implementation and sole
focus on the land and domains only. It became necessary to enact a more thorough
law that "seeks to end prejudice against indigenous people through recognition of
certain rights over their ancestral lands, and to live in accordance recognize and
protect the rights of the indigenous people not only to their ancestral domain but to
social justice and human rights, self-determination and empowerment, and their
cultural integrity." Movements to pass a comprehensive law protecting the
indigenous people of the Philippines' human rights as well as their lands arose as a
result of this.
CIPRAD or the Coalition for Indigenous People's Rights and
Ancestral Domains is an alliance of Indigenous People's Organizations (IPOs) and
non-government organizations (NGOs) created to pursue the advocacy for IP rights
and ancestral domains.
IPRA, formerly known as Ancestral Domain Bill, was first filed in the
Congress sometime in 1987 under the Senate Bill No. 909 but was never enacted
into law. The IPOs chose to give it another shot despite these failures. To
emphasize the holistic approach and nature of the bill, decisions have been made
during social negotiations among NGOs and POs to rename the legislation from
Ancestral Domain Bill to Indigenous Peoples Rights Act. In December 1995,
representatives of IP and NGOs reached an understanding.
The following are the seven non-negotiable aspects of the bill that were
advocated:
a) recognition of native title and rights of Indigenous peoples (IPs) to
ancestral domains;
b) respect for the right to cultural integrity;
c) recognition of indigenous peoples' political structures and governance;
d) delivery of basic services to the indigenous peoples;
e) respect for human rights;
f) elimination of discrimination;
g) and creation of an office that would cater to IPs' needs.

Senator Juan Flavier sponsored Senate Bill No. 1728 in the 10th Congress of
1996. He spoke about the 1987 Constitution's legal foundations for the bill in his
speech as a sponsor. Additionally, he spoke about the fundamental rights of
Indigenous cultural communities (ICCs), the bill's provisions, and the urgent need
to protect the Indigenous People of the Philippines.
The House of Representatives finally passed the bill in the late hours of
September 1997, overcoming challenging obstacles and congressional amendments
that nearly put the movement to death. In order to "Recognize, Protect and
Promote the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples
(ICCs/IPS) and for other Purposes," President Fidel V. Ramos signed Republic Act
No. 8371, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, on October 29, 1997.

Ancestral Domains
Ancestral domains are defined by the 1997 IPRA Law as "areas generally
belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural
resources held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs by
themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time
immemorial, continuously to the present even when interrupted by war, force
majeure, or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a result of government
projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private
individuals or corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic,
social and cultural welfare. It includes forests, pastures, residential, agricultural
and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable otherwise,
hunting grounds, burial rounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other
natural resources and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by
ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and
traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs and IPs who are still
nomadic and or shifting cultivators."
The ICCs/IPs' claims of ownership over the places they own, occupy, and
use—and to which they have spiritual and cultural ties—are known as ancestral
domains. This typically refers to possessions they had in the past, as far back as
their memories will allow. Elderly testimony, historical accounts, anthropological
or ethnographic studies, place names that use the dialect or language of indigenous
peoples, genealogy, and treaties or pacts between or among indigenous peoples and
other populations are all examples of proofs of possession since time immemorial.

Ancestral Lands
 Ancestral lands, as stated in the law, refer to "lands occupied, possessed and
utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since
time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under
claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present
even when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit,
stealth or as a consequence of government projects, and other voluntary dealings
entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not
limited to residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms
and tree lots."
The right to transfer these ancestral lands and the right to recover ancestral
lands that were lost due to tainted consent are granted to the owners of ancestral
lands. In contrast, ancestral domains refer specifically to the land, whereas a
domain may also include aerial, maritime, and terrestrial territories.

Rights to Ancestral Domain

The Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997's Chapter III, Section 7 addresses the 8
Rights to Ancestral Domain. This chapter focuses on identifying and defending the
Indigenous Cultural Communities' (ICC) and Indigenous Peoples' (IPs') right to be
recognized as the legitimate owners of their ancestral lands.
This was put in place to put an end to the historical injustices that the IPs
had to endure. The law has been in effect since 1997, but injustices against IPs in
the Philippines continue to occur. The IPs are having a difficult time defending
their rights because they believe that the government has ignored them for too
long.
The main criticism concerning R.A. 8371 is that it is ambiguous. One of the
issues it encountered was that it is inconsistent and conflicting with the Philippines'
Constitution. The doctrine of jura regalia, which states that "all lands of the public
domain belong to the state," has led to this situation.
The next issue was that the legal designation of ancestral domain rights as
"private but communal" distinguished them from the concept of co-ownership of
real property under Philippine civil law. This indicated that although community
members shared land in ancestral domains, the New Civil Code did not treat them
as co-owners of the aforementioned property.
 Section 57 of Chapter VIII is also viewed as problematic because it entitles
an IP member to the right of ownership of the aforementioned natural resources
when it comes to the development, exploitation, extraction, or harvesting of
resources found within ancestral domains, but this cannot be the case as rather it
merely gives them the right to be prioritized Section 57 does not really reject the
jura regalia, also known as the Regalian Doctrine or the Doctrine of Discipline
expressed in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Philippine Constitutions.
Despite these controversies, in the landmark case of Cruz v. DENR, when
the petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the IPRA, though through only a
technicality, the IPRA’s constitutionality was sustained, for the betterment of the
Philippines’ Indigenous Cultural Communities.

Latest Statistics of the Overall Linguistic Groups in the Philippines

A total of 182 native languages are spoken in the country, and four of them
—Dicamay Agta, Katabaga, Tayabas Ayta, and Villaviciosa Agta—have been
designated as extinct, according to Ethnologue, an annual reference publication in
print and online that offers statistics and other information on the living languages
of the world. All of the languages, with the exception of English, Spanish,
Chavacano, and varieties (Hokkien, Cantonese, and Mandarin), are members of the
Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian language family.
https://translatorswithoutborders.org/philippines-language-map/

According to a 2010 Census of Population and Housing by the Philippine

Statistics Agency, there are 4 indigenous languages with more than 5 million
native speakers namely, Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilocano, and Hiligaynon.
According to the same census there are also 7 languages with 1 million to 5
million native speakers namely: Bicolano, Waray, Kapampangan, Pangasinense,
Maguindanaoan, Maranaoan, and Tausug.

Statistics of Researched Indigenous People

T’Boli
One of the indigenous groups in southern Mindanao's South Cotabato is the
T’boli people. Their name appears under various spellings in the body of
ethnographic and linguistic literature on Mindanao, including Tboli, T'boli, Tböli,
Tagabili, Tagabilil, Tagabulul, and Tau Bilil. They go by the name Tboli. Their
location and identity are somewhat ambiguous in the literature; some works
present the T’boli and the Tagabili as separate peoples; others place the Tbolis in
or near Agusan del Norte or Lake Buluan in the Cotabato Basin.
The group is found distributed in the province of South Cotabato with
relatively denser concentrations in the towns of Kiamba (4899), Maitum (4805)
and Surallah (3750, NSO 1980). The total census estimate is 69547 (NM 1994).
The T'Boli traditionally reside in sporadic settlements in the highlands of the
province of South Cotabato. The complex of highland lakes Lake Sebu, Lake
Selutan, and Lake Lahit is the center of culture. The settlements are typically
dispersed but are made up of family clusters with fifteen or more households.
However, at elevations averaging 3000 feet above sea level, clusters can be heard
clearly. These settlements have recently grown to include at least thirty
households, making them relatively larger. Every settlement had a gono bong,
which served as a place of worship (big house).
 https://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/culture-profile/glimpses-peoples-of-the-philippines/
tboli/
Tiruray
Despite being close to the Magindanao of the Cotabato Valley, the Tiruray,
one of the ethnic groups that inhabit this region, have maintained a large portion of
their own religion. They live in the territory bounded by the Tamontaca River to
the north, and the Tran River to the south, the coast to the west and the Cotabato
Valley on the east.
Depending on their orientation, there are three subgroups: riverine, coastal,
and mountain, each with a unique dialect. The people also use ceremonial and
ritual languages.
They are mainly in the municipalities of Upi (13,535), South Upi (10,240),
Dinaig (3,255), and Ampatuan (1,300) in the province of Magindanao (NSO 1980).
Nationally, there are 76,883 people (NM 1994), with 30,000 living solely in
Magindanao. There are 695 in North Cotabato and about 12,000 in Sultan Kudarat.
The Tiruray and the nearby Magindanao are frequently in contact with one another.

https://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/culture-profile/glimpses-peoples-of-the-philippines/tiruray/
#:~:text=The%20population%20ranges%20nationally%20to,of%20ethnic%20art%20and%20craft.

Manobo
 According to the relationships and names of the various groups that make up
this family of languages, the Manobo are most likely the ethnic group in the
Philippines with the largest population. 749,042 Manobos live in the entire
country, including the subgroups, in the provinces of Agusan del Sur, Davao,
Bukidnon, North and South Cotabato, and core areas from Sarangani island into
the Mindanao mainland.
The Manobo live in a variety of ecological niches throughout Mindanao,
from the coastal regions to the rough mountain highlands. The various subgroups
are widely scattered across the entire island of Mindanao, where they have adapted
to local environmental niches to create distinct variations of a common culture.
Currently, the leadership structure is gradually changing with an overlay of
modern civil structures radiating from the level of the provincial governor down to
the level of the sitio councilman, a position frequently held by the younger, more
educated generation of the community. Although many of the groups have adopted
Christianity, some older religions have managed to survive. The more densely
populated areas and the more remote, inhospitable areas have both been
significantly penetrated by the national education system.

Distribution of Ethnic Groups by Provinces

(Arrangement: Population count)
MANOBO GROUP
(Manobo, Bagobo, Banuanon, Kulaman. Note: Other
Manobo groups identified in sub-group names)
Total National Population 213,209
+ 220,973
434,182

Surigaonon (144123), Higaonon (125490), Matigsalug

(26700), Dibabaon (17996), Kamiguin (Higaonon)(551)
Total 749,042
MANOBO
Agusan del N. 1,251
Agusan del S. 49,445 (NM
1992:159700)
Bukidnon 14499 (NM
1991:56450)
Camarines S. 20
Davao del S. 41058 (NM
1991:24145)
Davao Or. 5850 (NM
1991:4000)
Iloilo 50
Maguindanao 2256
(RC1991:1000)
Negros Occ. 9
N. Cotabato 23696
(RC1991:55758)
Pangasinan 11
Rizal 50
S. Cotabato 1,872
S. Kudarat 9558 (NM
1993:14300)
Surigao del S. 7152 (NM
1990:26510)
Zamboanga N. 11
Zamboanga S. 31
Kalookan 11
Mandaluyong 11
Marikina 10
-156851
BAGOBO
Abra 121
Agusan del N. 31
Agusan del S. 19
Aklan 61
Aurora 9
Bataan 235
Batangas 689
Benguet 149
Bukidnon 151 (NM 1991:800)
Bulacan 961
Camarines N. 24
Cavite 464
Cebu 83
Davao 415
Davao del S. 35792 (NM
 1991:5350)
Davao Or. 19
Ilocos S. 2,922
Kalinga-Apayao 752
La Union 20
Laguna 704
Lanao del N. 83
Lanao del S. 387
Maguindanao 154
Marinduque 141
Misamis Or. 10
N. Cotabato 3742 (NM
1991:7508)
Nueva Ecija 398
Nueva Vizcaya 10
Occ. Mindoro 114
Or. Mindoro 275
Palawan 54
Pampanga 31
Pangsinan 32
Quezon 590
Quirino 38
Rizal 1,227
S. Cotabato 172
S. Kudarat 150
Sulu 29
Surigao del N. 9
Surigao del S. 10
Tarlac 42
Tawi-Tawi 9
Zambales 204
Zamboanga S. 29
Kalookan 102
Las Pinas 52
Mandaluyong 41
Manila 1,372
Marikina 110
Malabon 42
Makati 135
Muntinlupa 64
Navotas 20
Paranaque 74
Pasay 72
Pateros 9
Quezon City 1,053
San Juan 11
Taguig 131
Valenzuela 52
SUB-TOTAL (53,379)
BANUANON
Agusan del N. 49
Agusan del S. 10 (NM 1992:8200)
Aurora 11
Benguet 149
Bohol 70
Bulacan 9
Capiz 11
Ilocos N. 10
La Union 10
Negros Or. 11
Or. Mindoro 594
Palawan 28
Pangasinan 52
Rizal 10
Zambales 11
Zamboanga S. 134
Las Pinas 10
Mandaluyong 134
Manila 50
Marikina 10
Quezon City 10
Valenzuela 11
. .
SUB-TOTAL (1,394)
KULAMAN
Aklan 10
Basilan 10
Mt. Province 10
Nueva Ecija 10
Pangasinan 10
Tarlac 9
Quezon City 4
. .
SUB-TOTAL (63)
TALAINGOD
Davao del S. (NM 1991:1991)
ILIANEN
S. Cotabato (NM 1992:12)
GUIANGAN
Bukidnon (NM 1991:450)
Davao del S. (NM 1991:15000)
KLATA
Davao del S. (NM 1991:3000)
UBO
Davao del S. (NM 1991:8000)
https://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/culture-profile/glimpses-peoples-of-the-philippines/manobo/

Statistics on No. of CALTs/CADTs issued to IPs in the Philippines

Statistics on No. of CALTs/CADTs issued to IPs Researched