IN the Manila leg of the public consultation on the proposed Indigenous Peoples Code (IP Code), recently, experts in human rights and governance cautioned against provisions in Bill 273, the “Bangsamoro Indigenous Peoples Development Act,” suggesting conflicts with the Constitution and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), the national law governing Indigenous rights in the Philippines.

At the event, lawyer Benedicto Bacani, Executive Director of the Institute of Autonomy and Governance (IAG), highlighted a “clash of frameworks” hindering resolution on key issues such as identity and ancestral domain. Bacani pointed out differing perspectives between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the national government regarding ancestral domain rights.

Referring to a Supreme Court ruling on the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), Bacani pointed out the precedence of national laws over subordinate laws.

A coalition of Indigenous Peoples Organizations, Indigenous Rights Advocates, and Human Rights Organizations (Loyukan) is advocating for the full recognition of the rights of Non-Moro Indigenous Peoples (NMIPs) in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (Barmm).

In a statement released today, Loyukan emphasized that achieving peace in the Bangsamoro region requires the equitable treatment of all communities, with a commitment to dignity, justice, and equality for all. The group asserts that the upcoming decision by the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) on indigenous peoples’ legislation will profoundly impact the lives and rights of NMIPs in Barmm.

Loyukan strongly opposes Bill 273, known as the “Bangsamoro Indigenous Peoples Development Act,” currently under consideration by the BTA. Instead, they endorse Bill 166, titled “The Non-Moro Indigenous Peoples Rights Act in the Barmm,” as a more suitable framework for protecting NMIP rights.

The NMIPs, including the Tëduray, Lambangian, Mënubu Dulangan, Blaan, Higaonon, and other Indigenous Peoples in Barmm, have long struggled to assert their distinct identity and secure their rights within the region. Despite legal recognition of these rights under the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL), NMIPs continue to face unique forms of oppression and human rights violations that demand further legal safeguards to uphold their collective rights.

Loyukan underscores the historical precedence for distinguishing between NMIPs and the broader Bangsamoro community, citing Republic Act No. 6734 and administrative distinctions made by the National Government. They stress that legislative measures aimed at addressing the specific needs of NMIPs will not diminish the rights of other Bangsamoro peoples.

For his part, Atty. Rolly Francis Peoro of the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC), criticized Bill 273 for failing to recognize the distinct identity of Non-Moro Indigenous Peoples (NMIPs) and for prioritizing development over collective Indigenous rights.

In a joint statement, NMIP Indigenous political structures expressed deep concerns about the potential impact of Bill 273 on their ancestral domains and collective rights.

Representatives from the University of the Philippines (UP) Law Center and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) echoed these concerns, emphasizing the potential diminution of NMIP rights.

Former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, acknowledged elements of IPRA in the bill but emphasized the need to address serious concerns, particularly regarding NMIP rights.

Calls were made by LRC and NMIP groups for the passage of Bill 166, “The Non-Moro Indigenous Peoples Rights Act,” supported by NMIP communities in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region. (CBC)