CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, Feb, 2, 2011—Alberto “Tay Berting” Pinagawa woke up very early on Christmas eve 2009. After doing his early morning prayers as a lay minister of the Anakan Parish in nearby Gingoog City, he hastily prepared to go home as he was excited to report to his wife Genara the good news of his community organizing work in Barangay Minalwang.
Tay Berting spent the night of December 23, 2009 in Minalwang, Claveria, Misamis Oriental after spending a day there organizing his tribesmen against the entry of a logging firm that is “technically” doing illegal logging activities in the Higaonon nation’s ancestral territories in the Gingoog City-Claveria border.
Before he became the “face” of the lumad anti-logging struggle in Misamis Oriental, Tay Berting was content in farming a small parcel of land in the middle of a diphterocarp forest in Barangay Kalipay, Gingoog City.
But when the Southwood Timber Corporation (STC) started cutting the first-growth forest he respected and loved, Tay Berting began organizing his fellow Higaonons against STC’s logging concession.
In the course of his anti-logging crusade, Tay Berting even had to walk almost 40 kilometers from his home to the Gingoog City poblacion to give his testimony to Fr. Roger Almonia, Anakan parish priest about the massive cutting of trees inside the Higaonons’ 8,000+ hectares ancestral territory.
This testimony galvanized the Higaonon and Bisaya (Christian) community to sign a petition demanding the immediate cancellation of the Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) issued to STC covering 11,476 hectares of forest straddling Barangay Eureka and Barangay Anakan in Gingoog and Barangay Minalwang in Claveria town.
This was also the cause of his untimely death at the hands of hired killers, who ambushed him on the early morning of December 24, 2009 along a remote road in Barangay Minalwang, Claveria while he was happily walking home.
His body sustained 20 gunshot wounds that caused his instant death.
He was 54.
--
Still in Gingoog City, located 122 kilometers east of Cagayan de Oro City and 74 kilometers west of Butuan City, lumad children of the Higaonon tribe as young a nine, continue to haul logs for paltry pay.
These children are being used by wood traders and loggers—legal or illegal—because they are cheaper than carabaos.
Thus, they are called “carabao children.”
They are paid a measly P20 per log hauled.
In its January 30, 2010 report and February 4, 2010 consolidated report, the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) in Gingoog City confirmed the veracity of the existence of these carabao children in barangays Eureka and Kalipay.
These children even skip classes just so they could haul logs for pay, said Higaonon tribal youth leader Emmanuel Ansihagan.
Gingoog City Social Welfare Officer Napoleon Austria Jr. admitted the existence of these “carabao children.” He also said he had asked the NCIP, DSWD, local government unit of Gingoog, non-government organizations and other concerned agencies to form a multi-agency body to investigate this as this is a clear violation of the laws on labor and child abuse.
But until the government addresses this issue, these Higaonon kids called “carabao children” will be a bane to the city of Gingoog, which originally came from the word "Hingoog," which in Manobo means "Goodluck."
Gingoog City literally means the “City of Good Luck.”
--
Mindanao.
Land of Promise. Land of Conflict. Land of Plenty. Land of Poverty.
These are just some of the phrases that described Mindanao, or more specifically, the situation of Mindanao, the second largest island in the Philippines.
Although Mindanao is blessed with an expansive territory, bountiful natural resources and a vast potential for human capital, Mindanawons (Muslims, Lumads and Christians) have yet to reap its bounty. Close to half of its population (44%) live below the poverty line.
Most pundits attribute this marginalization of Mindanao to Manila’s bias against it, especially in the sharing of the national income and policy-making structures and processes. Thus, most of Philippine history and experience, business and politics, are shaped and viewed from Manila’s perspective and Manila’s gain.
These and more aggravate the situation of Mindanao and effectively disempower majority of Mindanawons, especially the lumads.
Overlapping functions of government agencies:
Just take a closer look at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP); three government agencies that are mandated to protect the environment, the right to land, and the rights of the lumads.
But unfortunately, overlapping function and policies result to problems that in the long haul ultimately undermine the laws that protect and advance the rights of the lumads.
Thus, when former President Gloria Arroyo issued Executive Order 726 on May 23, 2008 placing the NCIP as an attached agency of the DENR, many non-government organizations fighting for the rights of the lumads cried foul, saying it is an affront to NCIP’s autonomy and full implementation of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA).
One of the provisions of the IPRA states that the NCIP shall be under the Office of the President.
Arroyo’s EO 726 was not the first time that showed her refusal to directly oversee the NCIP, passing it like hot potato to other government agencies as an attached agency, rather than taking full responsibility in the protection and advancement of the lumads’ rights.
On September 27, 2004, Arroyo transferred NCIP from the Office of the President to the DAR through Executive Order 364 despite problems over issuance of Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) to lands with existing ancestral domain claims.
The Administrative Code of 1987 states that an attached agency still holds a level of independence compared to a line agency under the department which is subject to the control and supervision of the department secretary.
NCIP’s attachment is for the purposes of program and policy coordination. However, NCIP is also subject to reporting requirement to the environment secretary.
Responding to this attachment of NCIP to DENR, the environmental group that is also pushing for the full recognition and protection of the lumads’ rights, the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of the Earth Philippines (LRC-Ksk/FoE Phils.) said that this is a cause for alarm because “under this organizational structure are the emphasized phrases and functions of the department vis-à-vis the attached agency.”
“It is expected that they will now use the transfer as a clear action to respond to conflicting policies, interpretation and implementation of laws which affect the rights of indigenous peoples, in relation to the exploitation, development and utilization of natural resources,” LRC-KsK/FoE Phils. warned.
The Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao (AFRIM), Inc. said the attachment was not to “protect and guarantee equal footing from the rights and opportunities” but rather to facilitate easily the entry of the foreign mining companies and logging companies to the mineral-rich areas and forests inside the ancestral territories.
The IPRA recognized the lumads’ claim or title over land, not the natural resources on, in, and underneath it. The Constitution says that natural resources are owned by the State.
Thus, “the transfer of NCIP just reinforces the States claim on natural resources within ancestral domains… Making NCIP under DENR is synonymous to putting IPs under the watch of a government agency supportive of mining industries,” AFRIM Executive Director Mary Luz Feranil explained.
Feranil also said that “when NCIP was still under the DAR, it is an expression of the concept of ancestral domains as part of agrarian reform. “
With the attachment, “DENR has a say in the matters of NCIP. The implementation of IPRA and other policies which affects IPs can easily be manipulated and controlled by DENR,” she added.
“With DENR now actually having a say in the matters of NCIP, then it can hands–on control and manipulate the implementation of the IPRA and also of other policies which affect IPs,” the LRC-Ksk/FoE Phils. alleged.
Importance of FPIC:
But even before the NCIP was put under DENR, it already encroached on NCIP's turf—— Department Administrative Order 07–15 or the Amended Revised IRR of the Mining Act, Section 35 stated: "Mineral Agreement applicant whose applications originated from EP and have complied with the above requirements in the process are no longer covered by the same NCIP requirements."
In its Philippine Asset Reform Report Card, the Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA) said that the top three extractive industries present in ancestral domains are logging (69.8% – which represents the decades–long of TLAs [timber lease agreements] and forestry concessions), mining (44.2%), and logging and mining (23.3%). These industries are all regulated by the DENR.
Before any industry can enter or develop an area claimed or titled by indigenous peoples, the industry has to first get the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of the IPs (lumads) because the FPIC process will ensure the active participation of IPs in the decision making process and that IP rights, customs, traditions and practices will be respected. Moreover, this process will ensure a just and equitable partnership between the company and the IPs in relation to environmental management and the development and utilization of natural resources within IP ancestral domains should FPIC be granted.
Under IPRA, a non-member of the IP community must obtain consent from the concerned IPs before it may be allowed to take part in the development and utilization of the natural resources, such as forest and mineral resources, within the ancestral domains of the IPs (IPRA, Section 57).
Section 3g of the IPRA defines FPIC as “the consensus of all members of the indigenous cultural communities (ICCs)/indigenous peoples (IPs) to be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the activity, in a language and process understandable to the community.”
But in actual practice in most cases, poor, rural IP communities become bystanders or second-class participants in development projects that take advantage of the natural resource wealth they traditionally own, with very little gain for them.
“The practice of FPIC is designed as an antidote to this state of affairs. FPIC consists of giving local people a formal role—and some form of veto power—in the consultations and ultimate decisions about local development projects. It is intended to secure the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities: their rights to self-determination, to control access to their land and natural resources, and to share in the benefits when these are utilized by others. Many experts believe that without such informed consent on large projects, a community’s land and resource rights are compromised,” said Antonio LaViña and Smita Nakhooda in their article “Empower Communities through Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.”
“In fact, without the kind of substantive participation that FPIC mandates, the tenure security of rural communities is always at the mercy of decisions made by others. It is well documented that such insecurity perpetuates poverty. In contrast, with the bargaining power that FPIC provisions bring them, communities can demand direct compensation for damages or a continuing share of the profits of resource extraction. They can even require the backers of development to invest part of the profits from these ventures to meet community needs. In this respect, FPIC is a tool for greater equity and a natural pathway to a co-management role for local communities in large development projects,” they added.
No FPIC in logging concession:
No FPIC.
This is the main contention of the Higaonon people in Gingoog City-Claveria, Misamis Oriental in demanding for the immediate cancellation of the Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) the DENR granted to Southwood Timber Corporation (STC) on May 23, 2008.
DENR Administrative Order No. 99-53 defined IFMA as “a production sharing contract entered into by and between the DENR and a qualified applicant wherein the DENR grants to the latter the exclusive right to develop, manage, protect and utilize a specified area of forestland and forest resources therein for a period of 25 years and may be renewed for another 25-year period, consistent with the principle of sustainable development and in accordance with an approved Comprehensive Development and Management Plan (CDMP) and under which both parties share in its produce.”
Leading the charge against STC was Alberto “Tay Berting” Pinagawa, a Higaonon lay minister of the Anakan Parish, Gingoog City. He was also a member of the Minalwang Higaonon Tribal Council (MIHITRICO), chaired by Joel P. Mansangcagan, who is also chairperson of Barangay Minalwang.
MIHITRICO was granted its Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title 084 (CADT 084) over 18,028.63 hectares of land straddling Claveria, Agusan del Sur and Bukidnon on October 29, 2009, some 12 years after filing their Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) on October 1, 1997. But it was only awarded to MIHITRICO on November 19, 2009 with assigned number R10-CLA-1008-084.
Some 8,000+ hectares of MIHITRICO’s ancestral land are within STC’s IFMA.
NCIP documents showed that only the Higaonon community of Barangay Eureka, Gingoog City, through the Kamahan-Sagalbalan Ancestral Domain Claim (KSADC), issued a Certificate of Free Prior Consent (CFPC) in November 2007 to host STC’s tree plantation project.
KSADC claims some 3,000 hectares in Eureka as its ancestral domain. The NCIP has yet to grant the group it’s CADT.
The NCIP records also showed that the commission supervised the process of signing the FPIC in Eureka, Gingoog City and Minalwang, Claveria town. But the Minalwang Higaonon community refused to give its CFPC.
“After consultation with the Magbabalaon (oracle), the elders of the Minalwang Higaonon Tribal Council unanimously agreed not to grant consent and instead they would rather wait until their claim to their territory is secured and that will happen only after the title is awarded to them,” the NCIP documentation report said.
Claiming that its logging concession is illegal, MIHITRICO and some other concerned groups are calling for the cancellation of STC’s IFMA.
But STC, through its president and general manager, Jhonny Young, said in a statement that “the cancellation of the IFMA would result in severe economic dislocation of the company’s workers.”
“Also to be affected are the workers of its sister company, Asia Pacific Plywood and Timber Company (APTCO), a processing plant located in Barangay Lunao, Gingoog City,” Young added.
Jesuit development expert, Archbishop Antonio Ledesma of the Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro supports the clamor for the cancellation of STC’s IFMA.
Ledesma said that while it is true that thousands of STC’s and APTCO’s workers will be displaced with their closures, “that will always be the situation with extractive industries, but when the logs are all gone, there will be displacement anyway.”
If and when DENR cancels STC’s IFMA, it would be the realization of Tay Berting’s wish, for which he shed his own blood, said his widow Genara.
“More than calling that justice be given for his death, we are urging the immediate cancellation of STC’s IFMA. If that happens, then his death is not in vain because he always said when he was still alive ‘igsoon ko tulubagon ko (I am my brothers’ keeper),” she said.
CHR-10 Director, lawyer Jeanne Ivy Abrina, said her office has already docketed Tay Berting’s murder and that she has already requested the CHR en banc in Manila to conduct an exhaustive investigation into his death and the deaths of other Higaonon people who were killed defending their ancestral domain and the environment.
“Their deaths deserved more than just an entry in the police blotter. Their killings merit a full-blown investigation,” she stressed.
Ledesma said that it is very important to preserve the remaining forest of Misamis Oriental, particularly in Minalwang, which hosts the remaining “intact” forest in the province, especially because twenty-two of the 23 municipalities of the province lie along the coastal plains of Misamis Oriental, which has an estimated 1.5 million inhabitants, 1 million of whom are living along the coastal and low-lying areas of the province.
Misamis Oriental has a total land area of 316,730 hectares, and 70 percent of its land area or 221,711 hectares are classified as hilly or upland. Forty-seven percent (47%) of its land area is classified as forestland while 53% are alienable and disposable lands.
DENR-10 reported that forestland in the whole province now occupies only an area of 6,243 hectares as of 1996. The rest of the forestland are considered denuded or brushland timberland.
Historical data of the country’s deforestation showed that commercial logging on our natural forests is the cause of loss of huge forest cover which now stands at only less than 18% of the Philippines’ total land area.
Scientists said that an archipelagic and mountainous country as the Philippines needs between 30% to 50% forest cover for ecological balance.
An assessment made by the Norwegian project Options in March 2009 classifies the Philippines as Low Forest Cover, High Deforestation Rate (LFHD) country.
“As stewards of God’s creation, and our intergenerational responsibility to the future, we really need to protect the integrity of creation. One way of doing this is to protect our environment,” Ledesma said.
In the case of Misamis Oriental, “since there are only a few hectares of forestland left, then it is our responsibility to protect these as God’s good stewards,” he added.
Ledesma also condemned Tay Berting’s murder.
“The Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro condemns this inhuman act and calls on the police and other government authorities to confer justice to the family, relatives and constituents of the victim,” he said.
Responding to Ledesma and others’ call for investigation, the Commission on Human Rights-X (CHR-10) launched an investigation with Mr. Tito Valdehueza as lead investigator. The investigation is still ongoing. But so far, CHR-10 has uncovered two sets of suspects—one coming from the left and the other is a noted personality in the area who is against Tay Berting’s crusade.
Tay Berting was the 140thlumad leader killed in defense of the environment in Northern Mindanao since 2001, said Carl Cesar Rebuta of LRC-KsK/FOE Phils. Cagayan de Oro Team.
Rebuta said that due to Tay Berting’s sacrifice, eight councilors of Gingoog City endorsed a petition signed by thousands for the cancellation of the IFMA to the DENR.
Even the Misamis Oriental Provincial Board passed Resolution 64-2010 on March 15, 2010 requesting “the DENR to exclude from the coverage of the IFMA of STC the areas of Minalwang, Claveria, Misamis Oriental.”
STC violates IFMA:
STC’s IFMA allows the company to harvest “mature trees” from natural forests for commercial purposes and then do reforestation.
But the Provincial Board of Misamis Oriental found out that STC violated several provisions of its IFMA, such as failure to plant 23,500 falcatta seedlings, said Board Member Benedict Lagbas.
Vice Governor Norris Babiera said that under its IFMA, STC is required to replant some 50,000 seedlings in at least 60 hectares of its total concession area.
STC also failed to hire more foresters to sufficiently cover the 11,476 hectares concession area.
During the PB’s investigation, STC only has one forester, which according to Babiera is “not realistic” as this forester alone will be tasked to cover 11,476 hectares of land.
Early in 2010, the DENR sent a 6-man investigative team to Misamis Oriental to investigate STC.
The team found out several violations of STC such as cutting of trees outside and far from the IFMA area; failure of STC to observe the proper way of implementing reforestation; and the reforestation is supervised by a non-forester/non-technical personnel.
These findings prompted the team to recommend the immediate stoppage of STC’s hauling activities and total clearing of saplings and other vegetations within its concession.
The team also required STC management to explain why their IFMA should not be cancelled/suspended.
Logging, mining are magnets of conflict:
But environmentalists, particularly the MIHITRICO, was not happy with the team’s findings because until now, the DENR has failed to answer the heart of its contention—that STC is operating without a permit, because the IFMA was issued without FPIC.
FPIC Guidelines of 2006 states that FPIC must be given to a project proponent by an IP community directly affected by the project, which in this case is MIHITRICO. The NCIP granted MIHITRICO its Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) on October 29, 2008 covering 18,028.63 hectares in the barangay of Minalwang, Claveria, Misamis Oriental.
If consent is secured, the NCIP then issues a Certification Precondition (CP) which confirms that
project proponent has complied with the 2006 FPIC Guidelines.
project proponent has complied with the 2006 FPIC Guidelines.
But in the case of STC, the NCIP issued a certification that there was “NO CONSENT” given by the Higaonon community of Minalwang, represented by MIHITRICO as the legitimate CADT or
Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs). This means that the IFMA issued to STC covering 11,476 hectares is invalid.
Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs). This means that the IFMA issued to STC covering 11,476 hectares is invalid.
Also, STC failed to get the endorsement of Minalwang and/or of the host local government unit of Claveria, Misamis Oriental, which is a pre-requisite of the IFMA.
Because of this, LRC-KsK/FoE Phils. accused STC of technical illegal logging activities.
LRC’s Rebuta said the STC is using only the endorsement of the Gingoog City Council for its logging operations in Claveria, an endorsement that the Council has since rescinded through a resolution on December 28, 2009 during special session by 8-2 votes favoring the endorsement to the DENR secretary to cancel the IFMA of STC.
“Technically, Southwood Timber Corporation is engaged in illegal logging activities in Claveria,” Rebuta said.
Worst, STC also cut old-growth trees like lauan instead of only second-growth trees.
“Logging and mining are proof that our government lacks the creativity to develop our natural resources for the common good,” said Gingoog City native Ariel C. Hernandez, former executive director of the peace and development non-government organization Balay Mindanaw Foundation, Inc. (BMFI), which counts Claveria as one of its areas of operation.
Hernandez, who once sits as congressman representing the party-list group Anak Mindanao (AMIN), said that logging and mining are the “greatest divider of a community” because they are “magnets of conflict.”
Instead of encouraging extractive industries like logging and mining which destroy the environment, Hernandez urged the government to try alternative sources of income in line with carbon trading.
Thus, when President Benigno Simeon “NoyNoy” Cojuangco Aquino III pronounced during a briefing in Legaspi City middle of January that he is “thinking of [imposing] a total log ban everywhere in the country” environmentalists silently applauded, although with reservations.
The President’s pronouncement followed the massive destruction to crops and infrastructure now estimated to cost more than P2 billion and the dislocation of at least 2 million people all over the archipelago because of massive flooding and landslides due to heavy rains for a month now, exacerbated by forest denudation brought about by logging (legal or illegal).
Cold air from northeast Asia coming into contact with warmer air in the tropical country helped cause the unusually heavy rains, especially in the Bicol Region, Eastern Visayas, Northern Mindanao, Caraga and the Davao provinces.
During his inspection of the damage of the floods and landslides in Bicol, Eastern Visayas and Caraga regions, PNoy (as the President wants himself addressed, which is short for President Noy) stressed the importance of the log ban in a time of an unpredictable weather condition.
PNoy assured everyone in a briefing in Butuan City that heads will roll in the government’s drive against illegal logging.
He also said he will soon issue an Executive Order to address the problem.
Studies show that a total log ban policy in all primary forests not only abate the effects of climate change but also prevent flooding because trees prevent sediment runoff and forests hold and use more water than farms on grasslands.
DENR data showed that a total of 1,618 municipalities across the country are considered climate change/disaster hot spots.
LGUs can implement log ban:
But long before PNoy’s pronouncement, Misamis Oriental Vice Governor Norris Babiera had proposed imposing a log ban in the province, a proposal that was met with widespread support from several local and national lawmakers, the Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro, NGOs and environmentalists.
In Cagayan de Oro City, Rep. Rufus Rodriguez has authored House Bill 5887 imposing a total log ban in the city and declaring it a logging-free zone. This bill was passed by the Lower House during the 13th Congress but did not pass muster in the Senate. It refiled by Rodriguez in the 14th Congress recently.
Archbishop Ledesma is urging both the Misamis Oriental Provincial Board and the Philippine Congress to pass pending proposed laws banning logging in the province and city.
“We welcome a total log ban to help protect the watershed areas in Cagayan de Oro and other parts of Misamis Oriental,” he said.
However, even without Congress’s concurrence, local government units (LGUs) can impose a log ban as stated in the Climate Change Act of 2009 (RA 9729), which recognized and strengthened the role of the LGUs in addressing climate change.
“The LGUs shall be the frontline agencies in the formulation, planning and implementation of climate change action plans in their respective areas, consistent with the provisions of the Local Government Code, the Framework and the National Climate Change Action Plan,” Section 14 of RA 9729 states.
While it is the mandate of the DENR to protect the environment, LGUs are mandated by the Constitution to protect their constituents by protecting the environment and ecology.
Sec.16, Article 11 of the 1986 Constitution states that “the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”
Also, the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) also gives authority to LGUs to exercise powers over their territorial jurisdiction.
Sec. 16 of the 1991 LGC states that “…local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology…”
Thus, it is incumbent upon the LGUs to help protect the environment, especially forestlands because tree or forests are carbon sink that help mitigate global warming and climate change. (Bong D. Fabe)
Sidebar:
INDIGENOUS peoples (IPs) are locally called in the Philippines as lumad, a Cebuano term literally means “native” or “indigenous.” It is short for katawhang lumad, which literally means “indigenous peoples.”
The term lumad was first adopted by the delegates of the Lumad Mindanaw Peoples Federation (LMPF) founding assembly in June 26, 1986 at the Guadalupe Formation Center, Balindog, Kidapawan, Cotabato.
The term was advocated and propagated by the members and affiliates of Lumad-Mindanao, a coalition of all-lumad local and regional organizations which formalized themselves as such in June 1986. Officially, the Lumad-Mindanaw started as a multi-sectoral organization in 1983.
Lumad-Mindanao’s main objective was to achieve self-determination for their member-tribes, or, put more concretely, self-governance within their ancestral domain in accordance with their culture and customary laws. No other Lumad organization had had the express goal in the past.
During the LMPF founding assembly in 1986, representatives from fifteen tribes — there was no representatives in attendance for the three major tribes of T’boli, Teduray and Subanen — agreed to adopt the term lumad.
During the LMPF founding assembly in 1986, representatives from fifteen tribes — there was no representatives in attendance for the three major tribes of T’boli, Teduray and Subanen — agreed to adopt the term lumad.
The representatives of the various tribes deemed the choice of the term lumad as the most appropriate considering that the various tribes do not have any other common language except Cebuano.
Thus, the Mindanao IPs made history when they agreed to adopt lumad as common name for themselves, which is distinct from that of the Moros (Muslims) and different from the migrant majority (Christians settlers) and their descendants.
The term lumad, which grew out of the political awakening among various tribes during the martial law regime of President Ferdinand Marcos, is the
self-ascription and collective identity of the non-Islamized indigenous peoples of Mindanao.
Historical records show that the lumads controlled an area which now covers 17 of Mindanao’s 24 provinces at the beginning of the 20th century. But by the 1980 census they constituted less than 6% of the population of Mindanao and Sulu. Heavy migration to Mindanao of Visayans, spurred by government-sponsored resettlement programs, turned the lumads into minorities. The Bukidnon province population grew from 63,470 in 1948 to 194,368 in 1960 and 414,762 in 1970, with the proportion of indigenous Bukidnons falling from 64% to 33% to 14%.
Although Bukidnon province is still the home of seven lumad groups, they are only minorities like in other areas of Mindanao.
The lumads have a traditional concept of land ownership based on what their communities consider their ancestral territories, which may include cultivated land as well as hunting grounds, rivers, forests, uncultivated land and the mineral resources below the land.
The lumads have a traditional concept of land ownership based on what their communities consider their ancestral territories, which may include cultivated land as well as hunting grounds, rivers, forests, uncultivated land and the mineral resources below the land.
For the lumads, the territory they occupied is communal private property and the community members have the right to use any piece of unoccupied land within the communal territory. (Bong D. Fabe)
No comments:
Post a Comment