Dear PAO,
I am a member of a certain tribe in the south. My problem involves my property which is being grabbed by another person belonging to another tribe. I plan to file my complaint with the NCIP since its mandate is to protect Indigenous peoples, but one elder persuaded me not to proceed because there are requirements to be followed. What are the requirements that I need to comply, if there is any?
Kalentong
Dear Kalentong,
The government agency responsible for the formulation of plans and programs for the protection and promotion of the rights of the Indigenous cultural communities/Indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) is the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). Its primary jurisdiction is specified in Section 66 of Republic Act 8371, or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997, which reads:
“The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs: Provided, however, that no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this purpose, a certification shall be issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a petition with the NCIP.” (Emphasis ours)
A careful reading of the above provision of law shows that the jurisdiction of the NCIP involves disputes between parties belonging to the same ICCs/IPs but not to parties belonging to different groups. This was illustrated in Unduran vs. Aberasturi, GR 181284, April 18, 2017, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, stated that:
“As held in the main decision, the NCIP shall have jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group because of the qualifying provision under Section 66 of the IPRA that ‘no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws.’ Bearing in mind that the primary purpose of a proviso is to limit or restrict the general language or operation of the statute, and that what determines whether a clause is a proviso is the legislative intent, the Court stated that said qualifying provision requires the presence of two conditions before such claims and disputes may be brought before the NCIP, i.e., exhaustion of all remedies provided under customary laws and the Certification issued by the·Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved. The Court thus noted that the two conditions cannot be complied with if the parties to a case either (1) belong to different ICCs/IP groups which are recognized to have their own separate and distinct customary laws, or (2) if one of such parties was a non-ICC/IP member who is neither bound by customary laws or a Council of Elders/Leaders, for it would be contrary to the principles of fair play and due process for parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group to be subjected to its own distinct customary laws and Council of Elders/Leaders. In which case, the Court ruled that the regular courts shall have jurisdiction, and that the NCIP’s quasi-judicial jurisdiction is, in effect, limited to cases where the opposing parties belong to the same ICC/IP group.”
Applying the above-quoted jurisprudence to your situation, the dispute covering your property involves parties belonging to different ICCs, so the NCIP has no jurisdiction. This is for the reason that parties belonging to different ICCs/IPs have their own separate and distinct customary laws. Remember that every ICC/IP has their own and distinct customary laws, traditions and practices, and it would be contrary to the principle of fair play and due process if the party belonging to other ICCs/IPs will be subjected to customary laws which he/she is not bound to.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
