Julie Smit: 1. According to the Philippine Human Rights Group Karapatan (1), the human rights situation in the Philippines has worsened since President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. took office in 2022 and rural communities, particularly Indigenous Peoples, are increasingly being subjected to militarisation, including indiscriminate aerial bombing. Could you explain what is behind this increasing militarisation?
Beverly L. Longid: Indeed, human rights violations have significantly increased since President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. took office. He has upheld many of the repressive policies of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, including the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 and the infamous counterinsurgency program, the National Taskforce to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), particularly in the context of the ongoing armed conflict with the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). Under Marcos Jr.’s administration, Indigenous Peoples, journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders, and environmental activists continue to face severe repression. In 2023 alone, there were 11 cases of enforced disappearances, 60 extrajudicial killings, and approximately 10 incidents of indiscriminate aerial bombings in rural communities. These bombings displaced around 20,000 individuals, many of whom were forced to abandon their farms. Notably, seven of these bombings occurred in the ancestral lands of Indigenous Peoples, areas rich in natural resources.
The increasing militarization serves two main objectives: suppressing insurgency and defending destructive ‘development’ projects like large-scale mining, mega-dams, and logging. Indigenous communities are disproportionately affected because many of these projects are located on their ancestral lands. When these communities resist, defending their land and way of life, they are often labeled as « terrorists » or « communist sympathizers » by the military, justifying violent attacks. A particularly harrowing incident occurred in 2020, when nine members of the Tumandok People, who had been opposing the Jalaur dam project that threatened to displace over 17,000 people and cause massive flooding, were brutally murdered in a joint police and military operation on Panay Island.
The militarization of Indigenous territories is not only about counterinsurgency but also about safeguarding corporate interests, as energy and mining companies seek access to the rich natural resources on Indigenous lands. Indigenous Peoples who resist are criminalized, and their ancestral territories are militarized in the name of « national development.
- President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has made the promotion of foreign investment, especially in the mining, renewable energy and infrastructure sectors, a central policy focus. How is this affecting the country?
In his 2023 State of the Nation Address, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. announced his goal of achieving full electrification by 2028, with a 35% share of renewable energy in the power generation mix by 2030. To attract foreign investment, he opened the renewable energy sector to 100% foreign ownership. He proposed Charter Change or amending the Constitution to allow full foreign ownership of land, which is currently limited to 50-year leases.
Civil society groups have expressed concerns about the impact of these policies, particularly the financial and technical assistance agreements that allow foreign companies to extract the country’s resources. These agreements are taking place without a comprehensive industrialization plan, raising questions about how the exploitation of these resources will truly benefit the country’s development.
The government is greenwashing the renewable energy sector—labeling projects as « green » without fully assessing their environmental and social impacts. Just because a project is called ‘green’ doesn’t mean it benefits local communities or the environment. Often, energy produced by these projects serves the interests of foreign investors, rather than the communities where the projects are located.
Misleading terminology is also a problem. In the Cordillera region, for instance, large-scale dam projects are labeled as « irrigation » projects, allegedly to provide water for farmers in the lowlands. This might create tensions between upland and lowland communities while obscuring the true impact on Indigenous lands and ecosystems. An example is the controversial Kaliwa Dam in the Sierra Madre, being built to address water shortages in Metro Manila. While the project claims to solve an urban water crisis, it will submerge vast tracts of Indigenous lands, increase deforestation, and endanger protected ecosystems, worsening the effects of climate change.
It is essential to help communities see through these deceptions and build a better understanding of these so-called “green” projects. There is a need for a clearer assessment of the country’s actual energy needs, particularly focusing on rural electrification and sustainable development.
In some cases, Indigenous leaders are bribed to accept mining and dam projects, with the belief that if leaders are convinced, it will be easier to sway the rest of the community. Meanwhile, reforestation projects are being manipulated under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA). This agreement allows logging companies responsible for denuding forests to plant fast-growing trees for commercial use. The Indigenous Peoples are reduced to becoming laborers for these companies, losing their ancestral lands in the process.
- The purpose of the 1997 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) is to protect the cultural integrity and ancestral lands of the IPs in the Philippines and guarantees their right to determine their own development. The Philippines is also signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. Does this legislation help to protect the IP communities?
While the 1997 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) and the Philippines’ status as a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) seem to offer protection to Indigenous Peoples (IPs), their actual implementation has been problematic.
Katribu and its members have been critical of IPRA since its inception. The UNDRIP sets a minimum standard for recognizing IP rights and can be a useful tool for advocacy, particularly in holding foreign governments and corporations accountable for violating these rights. IP communities and their organizations must study to utilize international mechanisms to expose how their rights, as outlined in international law, are being undermined by their government and private corporations, many of which are headquartered in Europe or the US.
IPRA, on paper, upholds the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their land, justice, freedom, and self-determination, and can be used as a framework for advocacy efforts aimed at the Philippine government. However, after more than 20 years of its implementation, many IP organizations are calling for a review of the law. For instance, the IPRA guarantees respect for prior vested rights, including those related to mining interests and licenses issued before the law came into force in 1997. Despite this, the protection IPRA is supposed to offer has often been disregarded. A glaring example is the renewal of the 25-year Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with the Australian-Canadian corporation OceanaGold for its gold and copper mining operations in Didipio, Nueva Vizcaya. Although the agreement expired in 2019, and despite years of protests and investigations revealing environmental degradation, labor abuses, and violations of IP rights, the contract was renewed for another 25 years. The company managed to divide the local community by bribing a few landowners, allowing mining to continue. Should the government succeed in amending the Constitution, OceanaGold might even obtain ownership rights over the area.
The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has also been a subject of criticism, particularly for its recently proposed revisions to the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) guidelines outlined in the IPRA. One alarming proposal seeks to exempt mining exploration from FPIC, arguing that exploration does not count as an actual operation. However, once exploration begins, it becomes difficult to stop a project, even if the community later rejects it. Additional proposals would limit the FPIC process to just 10 days, severely restricting the time for communities to gather information about projects and assess their potential impacts. This undermines the very principle of FPIC. Moreover, the NCIP wants to eliminate the requirement for separate FPIC processes for each phase of a mining project, further weakening community control and consent.
In conclusion, while both IPRA and UNDRIP offer a legal framework for protecting Indigenous rights, the ongoing challenges in their implementation show that more must be done to ensure that these rights are truly upheld and respected.
- Are the problems faced by IPs in the Philippines similar to those in other regions or countries?
Yes, the problems faced by Indigenous Peoples (IP) in the Philippines are similar to those in other regions, particularly in Asia. As over half of the minerals and metals critical for the global energy transition are located in IP lands and territories, the state and private interests increasingly encroached upon and targeted these areas. IP communities often find themselves under economic and military siege, with governments and corporations alike repressing, criminalizing, and even attacking activists who resist these destructive activities. In many cases, defending IP rights is being labeled as an act of terrorism, further intensifying the violence and repression.
India presents a situation that mirrors the Philippines. Indigenous communities in India who resist displacement and environmental destruction due to dam projects and mining operations face similar challenges. The Indian government’s counterinsurgency operations against Maoist rebels resemble those used by the Philippine military. These include aerial bombings, forced confessions, and the criminalization and defamation of human rights defenders. In both countries, Indigenous resistance is met with militarization, and the defense of land and environmental rights is increasingly dangerous and criminalized.
- The Government of the Philippines has committed $35 billion over the next decade to modernizing its military and developing defence cooperation agreements with other countries, including European ones (e.g. Germany), in view of rising tensions with China. Is it possible that military equipment supplied by European governments could also be used in the context of the counterinsurgency programme and the repression of indigenous and farming communities?
Yes, it is highly possible that military equipment supplied by European governments could be used in counterinsurgency operations and the repression of the Filipino people, especially Indigenous Peoples and farming communities. Many of these bilateral defense agreements, including the recent cooperation with European countries like Germany, are not solely aimed at external threats, such as tensions with China, but are also tied to the ongoing conflict with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA). Despite the government’s long-running counterinsurgency efforts, the CPP-NPA remains a significant force, and military modernization is often justified as necessary for internal security.
For example, the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the United States allows the US military to provide training, equipment, and material support to the Philippine military specifically for counterinsurgency operations. In 2023, under a new deal, the US was granted access to four additional military bases in the Philippines, some of which were the sites of aerial bombings that same year. This pattern shows that equipment supplied by foreign governments, including European ones, could similarly be used in operations against local insurgents and to repress Indigenous and peasant communities resisting militarization and development projects.
To address this, more research and documentation are needed to trace how military equipment and funds, even those provided under the guise of development cooperation, are being used in these operations. International solidarity groups, particularly in Europe, can play a crucial role in ensuring that European taxpayers’ money is not used to harm or kill civilians in the Philippines. A major challenge is that when bombings occur, access to these areas is restricted, making it difficult for civil society organizations to conduct independent investigations. Support is needed to help build the capacity of local communities and human rights defenders to document these incidents. Ultimately, tracking both the flow of equipment and financial resources is essential to holding governments accountable.
And we need to follow the money!
(1) Karapatan Monitor January – June 2024
Note: The brennpunkt published an article written by Alfie Pulumbarit about the struggle against OceanaGold’s mining operation in Didipio, Nueva Vizcaya in the Philippines in the issue 308.
Beverly L. Longid is an Igorot (Indigenous Peoples of the Cordillera, Northern Philippines), belonging to the Bontok-Kankanaey people of Sagada and Bontoc.
She is a human rights activist and one of the founders of the Cordillera Human Rights Alliance. She also serves as the National Convener and International Solidarity officer of Katribu, the National Alliance of Indigenous Peoples Organizations in the Philippines, and is the global coordinator of the International Indigenous Peoples Movement for Self-Determination and Liberation (IPMSDL).
