In the Philippines, the issue of land rights and possession has now become a hot debate and discussion among different sectors. Historically, land tenure, tenure security, and forest policies in the Philippines evolved in relation to the political, environmental, and social aspects the country experienced. This article will attempt to recount the history of land tenure in relation to forest policies and management. Land tenure is a legal term that is somehow complex. It is when land is owned by an individual, who is said to “hold” the land. All private owners are considered either its tenants or sub-tenants. Prior to Spanish colonization in 1568, land was “held” by or in possession of the chief or “datu” of a village community. He could assign usufruct rights to free villagers, while unfree people could lease land. Thus, the term “tenure” was used to signify the relationship between tenant and chief, not the relationship between tenant and land.
Thus the modern concept of “ownership” is not helpful in explaining the complexity of the distribution of rights when one speaks of land tenure.
Beginning with the Spanish rule up to the government we have today, it seems that no one person could claim absolute ownership of a parcel of land in our forests, except the state.
During the Spanish colonial period, the Regalian Doctrine was introduced and stated that all public lands are owned by the state. They gave the “datu” the rank of an administrative official who oversaw tax collection and labor recruitment. Under the encomienda system, large plots of land and the people living there were entrusted to the conquistadors who had to administer their region, pay taxes and use the labor for agricultural production. There first large landlords lived on the dues of the small cultivators, more and more of whom becoming sharecroppers. (Dolan, 1991)
During the early 1900’s, the Americans were quick to use the Regalian Doctrine to justify their claims of ownership over 90% of the Philippine landmass during their occupation. Unless proper documents from Spain were presented, the Americans insisted that the lands were public (Soriano, 2000). Native land rights were rendered ineffective and weakened by the state’s claim to ownership with the introduction of land titling. Thus, the Parity Rights, passed in 1947, defined that United States citizens have the right to the disposition and utilization of our country’s natural resources. Further exacerbating forest degradation was during the Marcos Administration (1965-1986), which allowed privileged individuals’ the right to extract forest resources.
When negative impacts of forest destruction were seen in the latter period, the government opted to try new policies and programs that involved communities and individuals in forest management. Projects such as the Forest Occupancy Management (FOM) in 1975, the Family Approach to Reforestation (FAR) in 1976, and the Communal Tree Farming (CTF) in 1978 were initiated by the government to turn forest communities as instruments in aiding the burden of responsibility in protecting, managing, and restoring the forests that were destroyed by logging. However, upland communities including the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) were continuously treated as squatters (informal settlers) in their own ancestral lands and became a source of cheap labor for the aforementioned programs. (Pulhin and Dizon, undated).
By 1980’s, people’s role in forest management was formally recognized through the issuance of Letter of Instruction No. 1260 or the Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) Program of 1982. This consolidated aspects of previous projects and solidified the idea of social participation in forest management and development. Through a Certificate of Stewardship (CS) or a Certificate of Community Forest Stewardship (CCFS), individuals and communities for the first time could have tenurial security for a period of 25 years. In 1989, the Community Forestry Program (CFP) (Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No. 123) through Community Forestry Management Agreements (CFMA) awarded organized upland communities a period of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years to utilize and sell products from within the residual forest, as well as establish plantations (Harrison, Emtage, Nasayao, 2004).
In the area of local government units (LGUs), the Local Government Code (LGC) known as Republic Act No. 1760 of 1991 became a landmark legislation. It highlighted the devolution of power from the DENR to the LGUs in certain environmental functions such as the implementation of community-based forest management projects, particularly the Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) projects meant to protect small watershed areas and enforce forest laws (Pulhin, 2004). RA No.1760 enabled community participation through reforestation initiatives and management of communal forest area less than 5,000 hectares.
The National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act (Republic Act No. 7586 of 1992) under the Aquino Administration encouraged community participation in the delimitation of land boundaries. After a year, the Delineation of Ancestral Lands and Domain Claims through DENR Administrative Order No. 2 (DAO No.2) of 1993 was implemented. DAO No.2 was more detailed and proactive than the Section 13 of NIPAS Law, and it mandated a special task force provincially to meet with indigenous communities to verify ancestral domain claims and identify forest boundaries. However, the process of application of claims is slow but upon approval, indigenous communities are granted Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claims.
In 1995, Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) as the national strategy for the sustainable development of forestlands (Executive Order No. 263) was adopted to achieve sustainable forestry and social justice. This is very similar to the CFP-CFM in 1989. Somehow it integrated existing and working social forestry mechanisms like Upland Development Program, Forest Land Management Program, Community Forestry Program, Integrated Rainforest Management Project, Forestry Sector Project, Coastal Environment Program, and Recognition of Ancestral Domain Claims. Latest official figures from DENR show that the area under CBFM covers around 1.6 million hectares of tenured forest areas around the country involving 1,781 peoples organizations (POs).
Five years after, in 1997, the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) (Republic Act No. 8371) was passed. IPRA remains one of the most significant policies ever passed because it recognizes property relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains. IPs whose ancestral domains have been officially delineated and determined as Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) by the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP), can now apply for a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CALT) in the name of the community concerned, containing a list of all those identified in the census. Through this act, NCIP can transform either a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) or the Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) into CADT/CALT and it becomes registered in the Registry of Deeds in the area where the land is located. Land tenure under CADT/CALT covers only 1.1 million hectares based from the NCIP’s the latest statistics. With more than 20 million people living in the mountains and upland forest areas with a population growth rate of 2.8% per annum, which is higher than the national average of 2.1% FAO 2001 (Fernando 2005), only those who are given the title under CADT/CALT and CBFM received tenurial rights over forestlands under certain specific conditions.
Presently, with only 2.7 million upland people tenured under CADT/CALT and CBFM, majority are still squatters (at least according to the Regalian Doctrine) in the upland areas. Meanwhile, portions of our uplands specifically the forested areas are covered by timber licenses such as IFMA, SIFMA and other tenurial instruments (Table 1). Similarly, with the government’s thrust to promote and boost the country’s economic growth, more and more areas in the uplands each year are being open to large scale mining operations all over the country.
The above shows a shift in the policies on forest land tenure in the Philippines from a centralized, to a participatory and people-oriented approach in the management of resources. However, the shift is considered partial since it only provided opportunity for the local people to manage forestlands on a very limited scale. The real “big ones” in the use and management of forests such as TLAs, SIFMA, and the other land-use instruments remained under the National Government’s prerogative or DENR’s discretion.
Though a change in policy towards the management of resources is seen, the question on land tenure security remains. The fact that all land is owned by the state, with its unending interest to improve the so-called state’s well-being, put land tenures even those that have tenurial security including the ancestral lands, unsecured.
