Cordillera Autonomy Part 3?

This so-determined stance of the Regional Development Council to push through with regional autonomy for the Cordillera is already a boring campaign and has lost its flavor.

Unless the RDC is going to make the issue as enticingly beneficial in the current scenario to gain attention by all sectors in Cordillera society, then the bid for the third attempt may see fruit. A flashback on the beginnings for a regional autonomy in the ‘80s began with a highly political setting calling for changes in the region.

With the call for regional autonomy highly politicized, the public saw differing autonomy frameworks from two highly ideological groups - that within a self- determining people within a nation sparked by the militant Cordillera Peoples Alliance(CPA) and the armed Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army’s (CPLA) idea of federalism of a nation within a nation.

The political scenario then showed a heavily loaded transition from the Marcos years to the Cory administration warranting the need for a change of political system then. Intense militarization and an equally intense insurgency and high incidents of human rights violations coupled with poverty marked the transition period before President Corazon took the leadership from then deposed President Ferdinand Marcos.

The need for a responsive political system for the Cordillera was equally high.If the plebiscite happened during the intense political situation in the middle ‘80s, I guess, the plebiscite for regional autonomy may have been realized. With the plebiscite happening when the iron cooled and the political climate was dazzlingly smooth and comfortable already with the leadership of then President Cory, the quest for autonomy apparently sizzled with NO votes over whelmingly winning over the lone votes of Ifugao still hopeful that regional autonomy will make wonders for the Cordillera.

And so it went until the second autonomy attempt was foiled in 1998 when the political administration led by President Joseph Estrada was equally not as politically polarized in the grassroots level to warrant a political change in government for the Cordillera. And more so under the term of former President Gloria Arroyo, she has established a mellowed government among heads and officials bringing the region under her control.

Seemingly too, at the same time, the people are pre-occupied with economic needs rather than going political such that getting out of the country to look for better jobs and opportunities was the more pressing and better thing to do under the time when GMA brought the country to utter impoverishment.

Now comes RDC chair and NEDA Director Juan Ngalob inviting President Benigno Aquino 111 to be the guest speaker in the 23rd celebration of the birth of the Cordillera Administrative Region on July 15 marking the date when former President Corazon Aquino signed EO 220 creating CAR in July 15, 1987. Ngalob thinks that President Noynoy will support regional autonomy.

Why will he not? In terms of allocating budget, I guess he will. Yet, it is a different thing when regional autonomy gets to a plebiscite. I believe so.

At this times when the administration seemingly is promising and determined to rid the country of corruption and bring a better Philippines, rocking the status and calling for changes in the structure of CAR as well and vote for ‘regional autonomy’ seemingly will not gain acceptance among the people.

The present set up is good as it is. What is needed is to make existing beneficial and progressive laws work for the Cordillera and equally craft relevant and beneficial policies not there within the present system. For one, is a policy letting Cordillera provinces have their share from National Irrigation Authority collections on waters sourced from watersheds within Cordillera territory flowing to lowland irrigation. Surely, such proposed laws can be forwarded by our representatives in Congress.

Or do we need a Cordillera assemblyman to do this? By the way, how is that bill already forwarded by former Baguio congressman now mayor Mauricio Domogan for local government units to have their share from taxes of national corporations doing operations in respective territories of LGUs?

While national laws have a stronghold on the economic and natural resource base of the people, autonomy becomes a vacillating issue. So vacillating that autonomy gets half-bred and redefined on self-determination within the present system.

A look at the program of the 23rd celebration of the Cordillera Month makes me smile like a college student. Some of the activities- intercollegiate debate and a radio quiz – aside from tree planting and ethnic hataw make up activities of the celebration.

Perhaps, a sizable cut from the autonomy budget may as well be given to the Department of Education so they can craft consistent ways of letting students learn what autonomy is all about the whole year round.

Meantime, what do the rest of the people of the Cordillera do to take part in this month long activity aside from the debate participated in by Baguio-based students and ethnic hataw by government entities? While the government has beautifully crafted development plans done by development planners and technocrats, I yet have to see sectoral development plans crafted by farmers, fisher folks, artists, teachers, youth, business people, media, women, and professionals in their own fields.

Unless if there is one already, I would like to know. Before we dream of regional autonomy for the third time and end up unpopular, consultations and discussions on common terms and aspirations is wanting. And then perhaps, we can tell President Noynoy Aquino what kind and what makes up the regional autonomy that we want. Otherwise, let the remaining P15 million budget information drive be allotted for livelihood programs among the rest of the Cordillerans before another batch will fly out of the country to look for better jobs and leave their families.

From: Northern Philippine Times

Read more...

The ‘evolving’ definition of Indigenous Peoples

It was on the occasion of a recent courtesy visit of some IP rights activists including Indigenous Peoples Rights Monitor representative Atty Mary Ann Bayang, to the Philippine Embassy in Geneva, Switzerland when Ambassador Erlinda Basilio told the group that “all Filipinos are Indigenous Peoples.”

The diplomat’s statement comes as an encompassing and limited view on how she sees Indigenous Peoples. Her view tells that all Filipinos are the first settlers of a given territory. This means even migrant Filipinos are IPs and they also have ancestral lands. The Ambassador’s statement tells that all Filipinos preserved their culture at the face of a colonizing force. It tells that all Filipinos have a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories.

True? Of course, as anthropology and history tells, the Ambassador’s statement is technically erroneous.

The Philippine Ambassador’s statement likewise finds similarity in the Bangladesh delegate’s statement to an earlier UN Assembly meeting.

The position of the Bangladesh government delegation at the UN Working Group on the Draft Declaration of Indigenous Peoples (WGPD) in 2006, says, “The government of Bangladesh supports the Draft in its present form. However it will not be applicable in Bangladesh as there are no indigenous peoples in the country” (The Independent, November 24, 2006).

The recent UN position of Bangladesh government abstaining from the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights aligns its earlier position to the Bangladesh government’s report submitted to the UN Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination in May 2000 which categorically denied the distinct identity of Indigenous Peoples. The report reads:

“Bangladesh’s geographical location and history have made it a home to people of diverse origins, races, colors, and descent. The assimilative character of Bengal civilization combined with the intermingling of inhabitants has resulted in a composite society which has racially and culturally turned into a melting pot over the millennia.”

Lest we go turning a blind eye that there are no Indigenous Peoples, it would be good to refer to some descriptions of who IPs are.

Anthropological usage of the term “indigenous” refers to the early or even first settlers of a given territory. This usage corresponds to usage in international human rights law.

United Nations Special Rapporteur to the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Indigenous communities, referred to:

“Indigenous peoples are those which having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.”

The World Council of Indigenous People, 1993 came up with this definition:

“Indigenous People are such population groups as we are, who from old-age times have inhabited the lands where we live, who are aware of having a character of our own, with social traditions and means of expressions that are linked to the country inherited from our ancestors, with a language of our own and having certain essential and unique characteristics which confer upon us the strong conviction of belonging to a people, who have an identity in ourselves and should be thus regarded by others.”

Indigenous peoples are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.

Further descriptions of indigenous peoples say that Indigenous Peoples inhabited a land before it was conquered by colonial societies and who consider themselves distinct from the societies currently governing those territories.

They (Indigenous Peoples) have a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them.

Further universal descriptions of Indigenous Peoples say, they, the IPs are very diverse. They live in nearly all the countries on all the continents of the world and form a spectrum of humanity, ranging from traditional hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers to legal scholars.
In its Operational Directive 4.20, the World Bank views that no single definition can capture the diversity of Indigenous Peoples. However identifying few characteristics, World Bank tries to single out Indigenous Peoples as having: a close attachment to ancestral territories and to the natural resources on these areas; self identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group and indigenous language, often different from the national language; presence of customary social and political institutions; and having primarily subsistence –oriented production.

International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 107 of 1957 defined indigenous or tribal or semi tribal populations in independent countries. According to this definition, “indigenous tribal, or semi-tribal population of a special category who inhabit in a particular region and have specific historical experiences.”

This definition describes the distinct cultural identifies and geographical concentration of the Indigenous Peoples from the rest of the society and they have special relationship with the land which they live in and with the environment surrounding therein.

Yet, with all these descriptive definitions, there seems to be no standard definition of who an Indigenous Person is.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) says, “there does not seem to be one definitive definition of indigenous people, but generally indigenous people are those that have historically belonged to a particular region or country, before its colonization or transformation into a nation state, and may have different—often unique—cultural, linguistic, traditional, and other characteristics to those of the dominant culture of that region or state.”

Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples though, an official definition of "indigenous" has not been adopted by any United Nations-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following: self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member; and historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies.

Source: Discourses on Policy Perspectives on Land Rights and Adibashis of the Plains of northwest Bangladesh, by Gina Dizon, Published by VSOB, 2008

Read more...

Charismatize Cordillera autonomy

As we observe the World's Indigenous Peoples Day on August 9 and conclude celebration of Cordillera Month (July) by the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), we are again reminded on the quest for regional autonomy among the indigenous peoples of the Cordillera generally referred to as Igorots.

Being subjected to a plebiscite 19 years ago and lost, elusive Cordillera autonomy is still as elusive as ever. Only 29% of respondents positively favor autonomy, says a survey conducted in 2008 by CAR's Regional Development Council (RDC).

And for the rest of thousands of Cordillerans with voting age, autonomy still sounds strange. As strange as a shooting star which disappears all too sudden. As strange as Jennifer Hewitt or the Prince of Wales. As strange as Tobleron or Kenny Rogers to an elder in the dap-ay until you give or show him a roasted chicken straight from Kenny Rogers Roasters. It is as strange even as the golden kuhol introduced by technologic Department of Agriculture who says the snail serves a multipurpose function so these were sown on rice fields, but practically grabbed space for rice plants to grow normally in some parts of the Cordillera as experienced by most farmers a decade ago.

Why….? What is wrong with this beautiful concept of being self determining like a matured, independent and empowered woman or man?

Why can’t it get through and be accepted by the rest of the Cordillerans or the Igorots for that matter?

Obviously, there must be really something wrong of why it is not that popular like Michael Jackson or Robin Padilla and Sharon Cuneta among Filipinos.

What does Michael Jackson and Robin Padilla have in common which makes them popular and liked by multitudes of people. Of course they are both guapo and both are celebrities. They identify with the common masa (people) and feel their sentiments. You can sense in the songs of Michael Jackson and for Robin, you can sense him identifying with u in his movies and the way he talks. While Jacko comes from humble beginnings, Robin da Idol goes along with people on the streets.

And what do people like? Obviously, people like things and ideas and people which/who jibe with what they feel and need and relate with, on day to day life. People associate ideas to what they can grasp. Ay makan sa? Ay mabalin ma-i- tono? Ay tet-ewa’y toma sa? Ineee, kampot ubpay dis toma…etc… (Is that eaten? Can it be roasted? Is it truly a flea? Oooooh, that was one lie of a flea etc...)

A dream, we make autonomy land on earth concretely to the psyche of the practical Igorot so that autonomy plebiscite Part 3 will at least see better ratings.

Best as how the best advocate and autonomy campaigner can explain what autonomy is, IF it is far from the psyche of the non-airhead Igorot, this beautiful ideal for autonomy will not see reality. You cannot ram down the throat, autonomy until it is digestible, eatable, edible, or guapo and irresistible.

So, ‘show me’ what it means. Show me the money says Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire.
How much money and jobs can we get if we are autonomous?

Can a son or daughter have better chances of being employed after graduation if we are autonomous? Shall there be increased daily wages to cope with rising costs of almost any commodity?

So we see what givens we have. Because we go autonomous and rely greatly on what we have, we ask what moneyable potentials do we have? First of all, we have a very industrious, ingenious and ingenuous people who can make things happen. We have the mountains full of gold. Do we like these to be mined? Can we turn these mountains into livelihood ventures if we are autonomous? (And by the way , how much are we getting or have taken from the Lepanto Mines through the years? As we watch Mankayan sink apparently because of the many underground mining which is happening, and sons and daughters from Mankayan areleaving their home sweet home out as migrant workers to wherever richer country there is, LCMC rakes in millions of money from those mountains of gold.)

We have nature and environs showing big potentials for ecotourism. Do we like these to be transformed into sources of livelihood? Can we make enough money to feed our family out of tourism from these towering or rolling mountains of Mt Kanip-aw or Mt Pulag?

How much can the government of the Republic of Philippine my Philippines help out in making industries happen for the Cordillera without asking for big cut in taxes? How much Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and development funds can the national govt give while we are gaining a fully autonomous region, or give as part of its regular accountability to give in the very first place, the Cordillera being part of the country?

We have the mighty headwaters of Chico and Siffu Rivers, serving as sources of hydro-electrical energy for NAPOCOR. How much income are we getting while NAPOCOR and the national government controls the proceeds? Are we really getting money from these powerful sources of energy? Do we have the enabling law to take our share? If so, are we getting our share?

We have a number of telecommunication relay stations in our localities. How much are we taking in terms of percentage shares? Or are they just there sitting on our land as big companies rake in money for those millions worth of texting and calls that we do?

How far can we control what we have at the moment? Can we control our own resources given that we have the Regalian Doctrine and national laws which dictate how much we can or cannot receive? Let us make this interplay of national laws and prospective autonomous laws very concretely clear to be understood and how much we are entitled so to know.

At the same time, we also deal with corrupt politicians who muddle the concept of what autonomy means, that they also need to get their corruptitious tendencies off their system so that the rest of the people of the Cordillera will believe in what they are blabbering about.

Because as we see Ifugao who was optimistic at first turned negative on the second plebiscite. Why oh why?

So I ask, what autonomous situations have we as Igorots exercised or can exercise in daily life, as individual persons and in cohorts or rather in partnership with another?

When transportation costs go five pesos higher, do we see protesting commuters or do they just accept it as the will of the supernatural or whatever it is? Or do we just shrug our shoulders and do nothing about it while enjoying the ride anyway and pay whatever amount it is?

How autonomous and assertive are we as individuals and as peoples in a wider community do in demanding for our rights and making a better place to live in? For sure, we know what our rights are. Unless we don’t , that is very very, very bad news indeed.

How autonomous are we as individuals in the very first place? Or to use politically loaded words, “self determining” and “empowered”.

I guess there are better chances of Cordillera getting autonomous if the autonomy information campaign will show what the Cordilleran can get out of being autonomous and how to reach there. With this basic info, we can be part of the “vision”, as we reflect also on how autonomous our individual and collective psyche is in the very first place. Then we can say, at least, we are ready for Autonomy Plebiscite Part 111.

But of course there still other factors to consider like a culturally diverse Cordillera inhabited by ethnolinguistic groups with ethnocentric prejudices.

Read more...

Cordillera autonomy, being part of the vision

"......so that we can say at the end of the day that the people of the Cordillera are part of that vision. And for as long as they are part of that vision I am sure that our people will not just be recipients of development but they will become a dynamic force for meaningful developments for the region."

Read more on the MESSAGE OF SOLIDARITY delivered by Presidential Assistant for Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) Thomas A. Killip during the Closing Program of the 2009 Cordillera Month Celebration Baguio Convention Center , Baguio City, July 30, 2009.

FIRST OF ALL, MY WARM GREETINGS TO EVERYONE on the occasion of the 22nd Anniversary of the Cordillera Administrative Region as a distinct political region in the Philippines. I am deeply honored this morning to give a few thoughts and a message of solidarity for this occasion.

My Distinguished Brothers and Sisters of the Cordillera, Ladies and Gentlemen!

One hundred ten years ago upon the demise of the Spanish colonial regime in the Philippines and the entry of America as the new colonial master, it would be of great interest to imagine how both the previous and the new colonial powers regarded the people of the Cordillera mountain region at that stage of Philippine history. It is for certain that there was a common observation, a common perception, and also a common description.

From the northernmost tip of Apayao to the southern fringes of what is now Benguet Province we can be sure that we were all regarded as Ygorrotes which is an ancient Tagalog term for “people of the mountains” (sad to say that over the years this term has been used, misused, and abused). Likewise, from the terms that were used to describe us, both by the Spanish and by the early American authorities and missionaries, we could be sure that both colonial powers at that time regarded us as uncivilized. This must have been the beginnings of the “making of a cultural minority”. For us people in the Cordillera, while it is true that there were many things in common, there was as much diversity and differences in our way of life.

On one hand, we were all the same half-naked people wearing loin cloths, we had the same musical instruments, we had the same type of wet rice terraced culture, we had similar forms of animist religion and conversely, we had different dialects, different architectures, different weaving designs, and many countless differences. We were all fiercely independent tribal communities living side by side with each other but we were likewise neighboring communities that warred against each other. Thus among the different native communities in the region, the fact is that we were as different as we were similar in various ways and respects. Politically each village had its own council of elders that administered its own particular governance. And socio-politically there was no pan-Cordillera nation to speak of. We were a paradox of sorts. We could be one and the same, and we could also be one but different.

And yet despite all these differences among the various communities in this mountain region and all the perceptions attributed to us we hold the proud distinction alongside our Muslim brothers in Mindanao as one of the unconquered peoples during the more than 300 years of Spanish rule in the Philippines. We have read of the great Mayan and Inca civilizations of America which were decimated to extinction in a few years under the weight of the Spanish conquests. But here in the small island of Northern Luzon are half-naked people who fought tooth and nail for more than 300 years to defend their domains and their independence.

Thus while the rest of our Filipino neighbors were made peons of Spain for three centuries, we were living a life of freedom- we were singing our own songs, we were dancing our own dances, and worshipping the way our ancestors did. Some historians may attribute our successful Igorot independence as mainly the result of geographic circumstance but early Spanish written accounts would describe the many armed expeditions waged by the Spanish army to force the native communities of the Cordillera to submit to Spanish rule.

The latest and last of these expeditions was led by Colonel Guillermo Galvey, the so-called “Butcher of Cuba” in the 1800’s who burned entire villages from Kapangan all the way to the Ifugao side of the Cordillera in order to force the people into submission. Coupled with these armed conquests was the Spanish Policy of Reducciones that justified the Spanish colonial government to compel the native inhabitants of the Cordillera mountain region to go down to the plains and to live a Christian life. All of these failed to the embarrassment of the Spanish Crown. This Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of the great success stories that have never been told.

Why do I have to share these historical accounts? Because this is one of the basic reasons for our existence as a region. It speaks of our collective character that has made us survive in the worse of times. The fact that we share a common historical process and experience in our history have helped carve a distinct collective personality, a distinct color and a socio-cultural bond that sum up to make our peoplehood and our identity.

Next, this whole journey towards national integration for the people of the Cordillera from the time of the Commonwealth to the present Republic is another historical process that must be evaluated and weighed objectively in order to steer development towards a more sound, a more just, and a more sustainable development for us in our region. This is in fact saying that the integration of the Cordillera region and its people into the mainstream over the past century have resulted in not a small measure to the socio-cultural, political, and economic disintegration of our region. We should recall that at one time, a slice of the Cordillera Region was integrated into Region I while the other half of our region was integrated into Region II.

Many of our political decisions are being made above and outside of the region for us. Most of our natural resources which include our mineral resources, our trees and forests, as well as our rivers were transferred into the control of big interests. Our region in the Cordillera has virtually been used and treated as a resource base by and for bigger interests to our disadvantage. Integration and development in its many faces for us has meant disadvantage. Meanwhile under the present set-up our region continues to receive one of the lowest allocations from the national budget. And so this is what we get for all the wealth of natural resources that is being taken away from us. If this is the type of development that will remain with us for the years to come it is not difficult to see where this will lead us to.

The creation of the Cordillera Administrative Region which is what we are celebrating now on its 22nd anniversary was supposed to prepare the way for an autonomous region of the Cordillera as government’s recognition and response to correcting a past imbalance and an unjust set-up. It should not therefore come as a surprise if the Regional Development Council should sound out the call for the continued “quest for autonomy” because it is only fulfilling a constitutional mandate. The issue therefore should be focused more on what kind of autonomy do we want and the best way that the exercise should be conducted.

Thus, in previous and initial discussions, formal and informal, some points and consensus have become clearer:

(a) That the concept of autonomy for the Cordillera Region should never be discriminating in any manner against any particular person or group of people but should consider all people living in the region as natives and citizens of the region with equal rights, privileges, and opportunities. If Cordillera autonomy does not carry this principle then it should not even be discussed at all.

(b) We belong to a new order. We do not intend to go back and live like the way our ancestors lived because that is a thing of the past. While we preserve the good things of the past, the beautiful aspects of our culture, and the important values, what we are trying to develop is a set-up that should respond more effectively and efficiently within the context of a new order. It must be concept that is better than a previous one. If it does not, then there is no sense pursuing that kind of concept and aspiration.

(c) Autonomy should mean a greater local control of plans and political decisions in matters that affect the region. Imperial Manila has the tendency to dictate plans for us in the region. Autonomy should be able to reverse that process.

(d) The development of an autonomous concept should be participatory down to the grassroots levels. The subject of plebiscite should not be the primary goal of this process. Only the people can clamor for such an exercise if they grasp the essence of this concept. A process should be designed to effectively involve the widest participation of people and of different sectors in our region. We know that this process will take time but that is the reality of this type of political exercise so that we can say at the end of the day that the people of the Cordillera are part of that vision. And for as long as they are part of that vision I am sure that our people will not just be recipients of development but they will become a dynamic force for meaningful developments for the region.

In fact at this time of unparalleled global economic crisis, it is but proper that the discussions for regional autonomy should be expanded and intensified to enrich the concept even more. We have to be empowered for the worse.

At this juncture let me encourage that those at the helm of development for our region should really sit down occasionally to study and assess what this exercise and quest for autonomy is and what it means for us, specially the greater majority of people in the Cordillera Region.

Having said these let me thank you once again. It was a great privilege!

Read more...

Regional autonomy is doing, not academic

Regional autonomy makes me think of Macliing Dulag, the slain, militant Kalinga chieftain who resisted government troopers who tried to ram Chico Dam in his hometown in Bugnay, Kalinga in the 1970s.

Dulag’s act of defiance is a concrete living example of what autonomy means -- a self-determining act of asserting one’s rights for public interest. A principled act to stand up to what one believes in, despite whatever rules there are. He made his rules and the rule is his life. Despite whatever law or policy there was, his land should not be touched by the government because land is his life.

Yet, he was law abiding by being true to what the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the right to life. The odds were against him, a threatening military force who bulldozes their way in his own backyard and a government policy dictated by the late President Marcos, to build the Chico River Basin Development Project. Some people were scared, some apathetic, some skeptic.

Yet, with his followers and others who supported him including international friends, Dulag stuck to his scruples and resisted the dam which led to the people of Kalinga and Mountain Province sourcing their food from their precious lands till now. What did he gain in the process?

For sure, he was not promised a Mercedes Benzor a palace, or a trip to the Alps or a load of money from anybody who wanted him to resist. He had a load of a living example he passed on to people of Kalinga and the neighboring provinces of the Kordillera on what is regional autonomy.

Now, we are not saying, you also do ala-Macliing Dulag and be a chieftain, resist the army, and die a hero. In your own backyard, you could have noticed injustice going on like a fishy infrastructure being built which was not built according to budget, or excessive transportation rates, lack of school buildings and teachers, an abusive authority, or a
good for nothing elected official who is not doing his job.

What are you doing to check the situation? I would like to mention Juniper Dominguez who despite threats to his life, consistently attacked engineer Mariano Alquiza, former Cordillera Dept. of Public Works and Highways director, of corruption on SONA projects along the Halsema Highway, where, through the press and the courts, contributed to the eventual replacement of Alquiza.

Now, Natonin native and Bontoc-bred engineer Roy Manao is the Cordillera DPWH Director. The credit goes to other supporters and silent movers who wanted to rid the regional DPWH of corruption. Meantime, most of the public particularly from Mountain Province who regularly cross the Halsema Highway are silent on the sidelights and either pessimistic, apathetic, skeptical, or just too busy with their own lives to care as to what Juniper is raving about.

I also appreciate the people of Guinaang, Bontoc who resisted the excessive transportation rates of their own jeepney drivers a year ago. So to drive home their point, they walked the one hour-ride Bontoc-Guinaang route to spite the drivers that they can walk anyway, and that drivers will not have any money for the day.

And so further on, the Guinaang people wrote CAR-DOT and LTFRB asking them to clear the issue and tell the drivers to lower the rates as diesel has already gone down from P60 to 40 per liter. The people got what they wanted and the jeepney drivers lowered the fare. Juniper and the Guinaang people are but some of the few autonomous individuals who stand up, amidst threats, for what they believe in to try and change ugly situations for a better and fairer place to live in.

This encouragement and admiration include other individuals who, as a group actively petition abusive authorities. Meantime, other neighboring people in Sagada for example, grumble and mumble about excessive fare rates yet did not do what the Guinaang people did. I don’t know if the rate is still P45, and not lower than that, which is supposed to be 27.00 for the 18 kilometer Bontoc-Sagada road, as what it should be according to LTFRB computation. Most people do grumble and mumble about what is wrong.

What am I saying? What had the people done so far in making themselves self-determining and actually exercise what regional autonomy means in their very own places? We have laws which support self- determining rights like freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, the right to recall officials as provided for in the constitution. Yet, I never heard of a politician who was recalled due to the action of people against one who is corrupt and abusive or good for nothing opisyal who closes his mouth and rarely forwards a resolution during the entire Sangguniang sessions and gets his monthly salary anyway.

Also, the Local Govt Code RA 7160 also provides for Special Bodies and NGOs to be represented in deciding bodies in Development Councils in government. Yet, very few NGOS had themselves accredited in government to be part of local governance. In the provincial LGU of Mt Province for one, there are only six accredited NGOs last year. And the rest?

Either the NGOS are busy with their own interests or fed up with the corruption and inefficiency of government. Even the government is not fully facilitating local governance involving the people. Barangay assemblies are not that observed in most barangays, as noted in a consultation on local governance conducted last year. Ask yourself if you know or were part of a barangay consultation/assembly a year ago or just recently. The law says there should be at least two barangay assemblies in a year.

What more, municipal Sangguniang sessions are nearly closed to the public by the non conduct of public hearings on issues which vitally affect them? The people also care less. What the heck. Life goes on. While this is the case, the drive for regional autonomy is just around the corner. Where people are not that enthusiastic and involve
themselves in political activities in their own backyards, what does regional autonomy mean to their lives? Seems to be only a concoction of dreams and ideals of a few ideologues which got modified by government technocrats and now finding itself offered to the people whether to accept or not.

So the government now through the Regional Development Council conducts these so-called IECs to inform the people about regional autonomy because as the survey says, 40% don’t know what autonomy is already about. Can regional autonomy be achieved in conducting IECs? How much of IECs are needed by the way? Seemingly, autonomy is seen as an academic problem where people have to know the definition of homogenous and heterogenous.

Yet, a major factor is experiential. Regional autonomy needs to be lived and people and government have to do it, breathe it in order to know about it, and do it more. Otherwise, it would just be like any other electoral exercise where people cast their votes whether to write Juan or Jose in the ballot. Either the people vote for Juan in exchange for a kilo of rice, vote anyway, or boycott. After the elections, what are the people doing to involve themselves in the promises of Juan the Politiko?

In most cases, people don’t care less and let Juan the Politiko do his thing while Juan dela Cruz will also do his thing also: work, feed his children, sleep, wake up the next day, work again and the cycle goes on until the next election comes again with Politiko’s boring and repeated promises for a better future. So again, what do we expect for this quest for regional autonomy?

Where people are not even autonomous to exercise their basic constitutional rights. Where people are apathetic to political life and get busy with their own economic lives because Maria needs 25,000 for her tuition fees in college and the government anyway can’t help in her nursing course fees. Where the youth who are the hope of the Fatherland, are busy playing Counterstrike, getting in Friendster, or chatting in the Internet. Many adults are busy with their own lives in order to feed a family or feed themselves.

Many people leave for HK or UK or EU or USA because there are not enough decent paying jobs in this country swamped with a dearth of employment. People are alienated from government as if the government has nothing much to do with their own lives. Yet people mumble when there is a problem on fare increase, high tuition fees or low pay. But it is only until there. Grumble. We need more Dulag Maclii-ings, Junipers and Guinaang people.

Reprinted from Northern Philippine Times

Ist Pic. Macli-ing Dulag
2nd Pic. Halsema Highway

Read more...

Regional autonomy once more with feelings

What do Cordillera people think about autonomy? Attempts by officials to make the region autonomous was voted down in a plebiscite in Jan. 30, 1990 when the four provinces of Kalinga, Abra, Benguet, Mountain Province and Apayao voted no with only Ifugao saying yes. The second attempt was also foiled with only Apayao voting yes on March 7, 1998.

What is autonomy? The people must have been right in their decision at the very first and second take. What chances do the third take give? Have the people become wiser, more informed, or they are already wise and informed in the very first place?

This politically hankered state of autonomy, I understand, refers to that state of being a free and independent region governing its economic, political and social life. If the Cordillera would become autonomous, would it be free from region from oppressive national policies. Government laws give us a framework on how to exercise this seemingly lofty state of regional autonomy following the peace accord entered into between the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army led by Fr. Conrado Balweg in Sept. 13, 1987 and then Philippine President Corazon Aquino giving birth to Executive Order 220 which sets up a regional administrative body while preparing for a Cordillera regional autonomy.

This, following Section 15, Article 10 of the Constitution which provides an autonomous region in the Cordillera with “common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the framework of the Constitution and the national sovereignty.

With moves for an information drive on Cordillera regional autonomy purportedly being done, I am curious to see what attractive features an autonomous animal the Cordillera would be, otherwise, the P15 million info drive is just another futile attempt gone to kingdom never come.

I consider autonomously palatable the position of the late Fr.Balweg who pushed for a federal state of autonomy for the Cordillera. In a federal set up, the Cordillera people shall make their own laws, Constitution and policies yet still be a part of the national state.

What degree of autonomy will the Cordillera enjoy if it becomes autonomous according to what EO 220 will prepare? Will it be just the same setup where people will exercise their political, cultural and social affairs the way things are under the present laws and political structure? Or will there be a strikingly distinct set up where people can say they are autonomous?

Just what structure and laws will be created in order to make autonomy realized somehow? If there be a collective decision for example among Cordillera leaders, just how strong will this be as an autonomous policy? What measures are in place to make this so?

Where policies are concerned, can the envisioned autonomous region provide policies where it can go against a national law or policy? The Mining Act of 1995 for example was given judicial mandate by the Supreme Court when the application for Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement of a foreign mining firm in Mindanao legally upheld its constitutionality despite opposition from tribal B’laan communities.

Can the envisioned regional autonomy say no to a Supreme court decision? Can it come up with its own judicial laws? What policies can the envisioned autonomy come up with and not being considered contrary but rather supplementary to national policies? On the other hand, national policies and practices are already in place for a semi-autonomous state. The Local Government Code already provides a system of devolution where LGUs could exercise some relatively autonomous control on generating taxes for one. Congressmen are in place to represent their respective provinces and people in Congress. Structures are already in place where LGU representatives can lobby for their share in income derived from the natural resources located in their own territories for one. Although it is another story when representatives and government officials cannot deliver.

Where the people in the region with more or less similar cultural and distinct culture could come up with their own policies about their own economic and political existence without the sword of Damocles hanging over their head, would be considered autonomous. Meanwhile, Baguio Rep. Mauricio Domogan and other political leaders are reportedly pressing the implementation of a permanent Cordillera administrative setup. This move may make some people push the Cordillera Regional Assembly and the Cordillera Executive Board as overseers of Cordillera affairs in the regional level. Just what happened to the former CRA and the CEB are things of the past which cannot be forgotten with a yearly P5 million budget cost of a lesson to draw from.

Creating a bloated policy-making structure “to articulate and harmonize the interests and aspirations of the people of the Cordilleras” was the supposed role of the Cordillera Regional Assembly composed of not more than 250 appointed from each municipality of the Cordillera, 10 from Baguio City, 18 representatives from NGOs and a tribal representative each is also a question.

Granting that these envisioned representatives have articulated and harmonized the aspirations of the Cordillera people, where shall these articulations be forwarded to? To the President? Congress? What sizable vote will these collective articulation bring to Congress or the Office of the President? How strong are these articulations in influencing national policy or when these challenge national policies? Is this the kind of self-rule that original proponents to Cordillera autonomy envisioned that EO 220 prepared for? How will Cordillera regional autonomous policy be in consonance to national policy-making? We maybe creating one bloated, overlapping body which is far out from original intentions of what self and autonomous rule means.

Another EO mandated body is the Cordillera Executive Board which is the implementing arm of the CAR is composed of 29 regular members of the board to name the Baguio city mayor, 5 governors, 6 from the Cordillera Bodong Administration, 12 from the different ethno-linguistic groups in the Cordillera, and 5 representatives from NGOs. Under EO 220, the CEB is headed by an executive director appointed by the President. Aside from questions of criteria to membership, what difference will this implementing arm make from departments and offices currently doing envisioned functions. Where it is a matter of codifying laws for example, or “promotion of indigenous institutions and processes for conflict resolution and dispute settlement, preservation and enhancement of indigenous customs, traditions, languages and culture? Isn’t this the job of the National Commission on Indigenous People where it has its provincial branches? Where it is a matter of looking at agricultural development, there is also the Department of Agriculture who takes care of this, as well as health and tourism.

Seemingly, this bloated CAR body and its supposed functions are a repetition and overlapping of what the regular departmental offices are doing. Unless, this CAR body will do something distinctly independent to further policy for indigenous peoples rights will it become relevant. As talks go on about this third attempt for Cordillera autonomy, responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Regional Development Council to come up with real good, authentic, representative and people-based information of how and what true and genuine regional autonomy really means.

The people have become wise, I guess, and know if they are being taken for a ride or not and the third attempt may just become kaput. This P15 million budget might as well be de-programmed or re- aligned for livelihood support activities for the farming and struggling folks of the Cordillera.

Reprinted from Northern Philippine Times

PIX LINK

Read more...

Concretizing Autonomy

The results of the survey on Cordillera autonomy just says one thing: What is autonomy? It is strange that 40 percent of Cordillera respondents don’t know what autonomy is.

With 60% of respondents categorically answering Yes (27.9%) or No (34.6%) to the question of the readiness of the Cordillera to become autonomous, it implies they are informed or assertive on their categorical responses. Whatever arguments they have, they can neutralize or persuade others to their sides – those who do not know or are still undecided whether or not to go for autonomy.

Obviously, saying Yes is a move which could be termed as daring or risky. If not now, then when? is the question for the Yes mover. A sound and feasible rationale based on concrete potentials needs to be presented to the public -- what regional autonomy means other than a Yes vote. It is a question on how firm is this position with regards to financial and administrative capacity of the Cordillera to go into autonomy. It basically asks how politically relevant is the move to push for regional autonomy.

The No position obviously implies a cautious step in going for an uncertain administrative or political set-up for the Cordillera which could be categorical or conservative. Why go into a set up when there is already an administrative and political structure in place?

An unsure and shaky setup on how financially and administratively capable the envisioned administration will be is one major consideration in taking a No position, apparently. And as said earlier, what is the importance of going into this political exercise considering national laws and policies which may contradict what regional autonomy means in its genuine meaning?

Preparations for an autonomous regional state is based on what Executive Order 220 provides. With this, one question is how politically objective administrative systems will be in place with Cordillera autonomy.

Many lessons need to be learned from the the setting up and operations of the flawed Cordillera Executive Board before going into an autonomous set-up. From here, we could understand the position of those who took No as their answer.

While Yes presents itself as an aggressive stance, caution and careful study still needs to be done on how to approach a seemingly highly politicized administrative autonomy for the Cordillera.

For the Yes movers, it would be good to ask why the need for Cordillera autonomy. What pressing issues are there at the moment that autonomy could solve for the Cordillera? How receptive are people on political and economic issues which affect their lives?

It is from a politicized mind that a resounding Yes will be generated from the populace. From the results of the survey however, extensive and intensive political work still needs to be done on the ground level. A half-baked autonomy cannot be rammed down the throats of the people who still have doubts and questions un-answered on the matter. A mere 27.9 percent who answered Yes is an isolated scenario.

Going into apparently, a forced movement with no visible and felt reason for such a movement at this time would be a futile exercise. Groundwork for a political atmosphere to set the motion into a strong movement for autonomy needs to be done.

It is the job of those who are voting for Yes to galvanize a conducive political atmosphere and work fon pressing issues which need to be highlighted in order to create the atmosphere for a Yes vote. And this needs time and work.

Issues on economic unrest and development are classic examples in setting up a political movement, that is, the autonomy movement to get going. Add to this Baguio Rep. Mauricio Domogan’s bill on direct appropriation of taxes by local government units from corporations operating in respective LGU territories, including pressing issues against corruption and the autonomy move may go an inch further. Perhaps, the Yes votes will increase as No advocates will be persuaded to vote Yes.

In much the same way, those who voted for No should state their reasons for saying so and come up with sound and viable answers why No is the better option. Perhaps the present setup is fine and going for another administrative political set up would be a frustrating exercise. Is autonomy relevant and feasible at all for the Cordillera?
***
The approval of the House Bill filed by Baguio Rep. Mauricio Domogan on direct remittance of national taxes by companies operating in respective LGU territories comes as a welcome development from the House of Representatives.

The amendment if finally approved as law will add to income of local communities if the Senate approved it. It shall be recalled that the same Bill along with other introduced House bills had been pending in the Senate before elections were recently held last May. The bill was refiled with the resumption of Congress this year.

While this comes as a welcome development the second time around for the Bill to be approved in Congress, further lobbying needs to be done on members of the Senate for their approval. Just how receptive are senators and the President to the proposed law remains to be seen.

Reprinted from Northern Philippine Times

Read more...

What are we celebrating in Cordillera month?

That was 22 years ago when rebel priest Conrado Balweg signed a peace accord with then President Corazon Aquino at Mt Data Hotel in September 13, 1986. A year after, Aquino signed Executive Order 220 in July 15, 1987 which gave birth to the establishment of Cordillera Administrative Region paving the way for Cordillera autonomy. Republic Act No. 6766 followed on October 23, 1989 which provided an Organic Act for CAR and policies set for the proposed Cordillera autonomous government to exercise governmental functions including tax generation.

On the Cordillera region’s 21st anniversary and its ideals of what it purports to be, what do we see now? As we can obviously note, the dream of slain rebel priest Conrado Balweg to see a freely determining and progressive Cordillera is yet far down the road. For one, the region’s natural resources are still within the absolute control of the State.

Consider Magat River which flows in the jurisdiction of Isabela and Ifugao. While rules provide that the share of local government units in taxes which accrue from the use of respective territories will be provided to LGUs, this does not come automatically.

Ifugao Gov. Teddy Baguilat has to lobby for the release of Ifugao’s share in taxes from SN Aboitiz due the province from operations of the Magat Power Plant. The amount of P28 million share of Ifugao still awaits legal mandate from the Department of Energy for them to release the tax share of Ifugao.

As it stands, Ifugao and Isabela where Magat Dam sources hydroelectric energy from Magat River stands to profit from the company’s taxes with a 50/50 share from the 114 million transfer tax accrued from the sale of the Magat Hydro Electric Power Complex to the SN Aboitiz Power from the National Power Corporation.

And that is true with other hydro-electrical plants of the region. Benguet is still claiming for its due on taxes from Napocor and the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation for the use of its water resources.

Recently, P11.9 million was released by the national government for Benguet’s share in wealth taxes due operations of San Roque Dam after years of battling for this. San Roque Dam sources its hydroelectric energy from Agno River located in Benguet. But that is not all of the amount of what Benguet is claiming. Still, such taxes are claims years back which have not been given to the LGU. If not claimed, then it follows that the government will not be remitting these amounts due the province.

Benguet Gov. Nestor Fongwan and the people of Benguet are set to collect P198 million in taxes from Napocor -- P116 million in national wealth tax for the San Roque Multipurpose Dam in Pangasinan, P56 million in franchise taxes and P26 million in real estate taxes for the operation of Binga Dam. Such a big amount of money which could uplift the lives of hundreds of the province’s constituents.

Benguet suffers in Napocor’s refusal to pay franchise taxes for Binga Dam. Benguet LGU has to file a case in court to collect franchise taxes since 2001; and power sales Napocor made from 1992 to 2007.

Meantime, GMA ordered the release of P124 million national wealth tax for Benguet due the province from the operations of Philex Mines Corporation at P71 million, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corp. worth P15 million since the last quarter of 2005.

The amount of P38 million is due from the Hydro-electric Development Corp. and the Northern Luzon Mini-Hydro Corporation since 1992.

The province’s share dates years back and the law is not facilitating an automatic share of the LGU’s share from the wealth of its own resources such that it needs the President of the State to bless the release of funds which rightfully belongs to the LGU and its respective constituents in the fist place.

In the same manner, SMART and other telecommunications facilities also are built on the towering peaks of Mountain Province. Yet, companies continue to pay their taxes straight to the national coffers as what the State’s commercial laws provide.

We still have to hear from respective local government units their shares in taxes due these giant multinational companies who continue to use the local resources at very measly arrangements.

Now comes the bill of Baguio Rep. Mauricio Domogan calling for the direct remittance of taxes of companies operating within the territories of local government units. Refiled by Domogan in the 14th Congress, these bills are pending. Control of natural resources is directly related to a region’s autonomy. Yet, income from these resources are not within the peoples’ control. That is, not within the Cordillera Administrative Region’s control.

The region abounds with rich natural resources where income could be generated. Consider rivers of hydro-electrical potential including Magat River, Agno River, Chico River, Sifu River. Consider towering mountains where giant telecommunication companies have to set up their relay towers to reach the farthest that its cell site can reach.

It is a pity that poverty in the Cordilleras is still a glaring reality. Poverty worsened in the Cordillera between 2003 and 2006. As per the latest estimates of the National Statistical Coordination Board, poverty incidence of families in CAR rose from 25.8 percent in 2003 to 28.8 percent in 2006.

Similarly, poverty incidence of population increased from 32.2 percent in 2003 to 34.5 percent in 2006. While we have the resources to get out from poverty and not let human and brain resources leave the Cordillera abroad for greener pastures, these income from natural resources remained out of our hands for years. Regional autonomy was touted as one answer to these woes but it dragged on for 22 years until now.

How serious is the government in facilitating autonomy for the Cordillera? And, how serious are the people in seeing autonomy happen? While we celebrate Cordillera Month, what are we celebrating for? Where is our passion for what Cordillera and what does autonomy mean? ]

Since two plebiscites had been rejected by the people of Cordillera on regional autonomy in 1990 and 1998 and, this move for autonomy is still vague in the minds of the people. Obviously, the survey some months back says 40 percent don’t. Yet, first the people have to do their practical part in acting out what self determination means.

Claiming for what is due is one’s right, an indication of being conscious about autonomy. Yet, I haven’t heard of tribes in the Cordillera claiming for their taxes due from Napocor or tribes from Mountain Province claiming for their taxes due from SMART. It’s only the enlightened officials who are claiming what is due their respective jurisdictions like governors Fongwan and Baguilat. The others?
Meantime, we ask: Where did the P30 million fund drive for autonomy go? It would be good for the regional development council to explain where the money went and let the public know what autonomy is all about.

Also, what did the defunct Cordillera Executive Board do? After a few years in operation, it is interesting to ask what it had done for the Cordillera and the preparations it did in paving the way for regional autonomy. Perhaps we can learn from there. Then, we can celebrate.

Reprinted from Northern Philippine Times

Read more...