Chants, Stories, and Sovereignty

Rationale

Indigenous Peoples (IP) communities face several communication challenges as they deal with government institutions.  

Government-led and private sector-led negotiations are generally Western-style, formalized engagements where scientists and lawyers represent the interests of the government and private sectors, while a number of IP communities often do not have representatives with similar professional credentials.

General Question

What communication practices are utilized by Cordilleran IP groups  in negotiating with government regulatory bodies on environmental and land issues?

Specific Questions:

1. What traditional communication methods are used? 

2. What are the identified communication barriers between indigenous communities and state-led environmental regulatory processes?

Policy Memo (Academic Excercise)

Submitted by:Ruben Guieb, Rocelyn Madinger, Elmer Soriano

In partial fulfillment of the requirements of IS 340 

6/1/25

Subject: Updating Section 17: IP Consultation and Communication

Context: After 25 years of the IPRA Law, there is a need to update the provisions given emerging trends and issues.

1. Limited impact of IPRA after 25 years: Despite the passage of the IPRA, implementation gaps persist, weakening the ability of ICCs/IPs to fully exercise their right to self-determined development.
   
   

2. Section 17 lacks enforceable power: The current provision emphasizes participation but stops short of guaranteeing real decision-making authority, leaving indigenous communities exposed to imposed development that may harm their lands, culture, and governance systems.
   
   

3. Rising threats demand stronger protections: Climate change, extractive industries, and top-down infrastructure projects continue to encroach on ancestral domains, underscoring the need to shift from consultation to shared governance.
   
   

4. Need to affirm indigenous sovereignty: ICCs/IPs must be recognized not just as stakeholders, but as sovereign rights-holders and co-creators of sustainable development—necessitating a revision of Section 17 to reflect this leadership role.

Proposed Revision to IPRA Law Section 17: Right to Determine and Decide Priorities for Development

Original:
The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs, institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or use. They shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies, plans and programs for national, regional and local development which may directly affect them.

Revised for Citizen Power:
ICCs/IPs shall exercise the right to define, lead, and implement their own development priorities, plans, and strategies, based on their own vision of well-being, sustainability, and cultural integrity. This includes the right to reject externally-imposed development agendas. Any national, regional, or local development initiative that may impact their territories or ways of life shall require not merely participation but the active leadership and consent of indigenous authorities. The State shall allocate dedicated resources, technical support, and legally binding power-sharing arrangements to ensure that ICCs/IPs are not passive recipients but primary architects of their development pathways. - END