By ARTHUR L. ALLAD-IW
www.nordis.net

In my last column, I traced the historical and institutionalization of the colonial Regalian Doctrine into the Philippine system. The feudal conquest theory that by virtue of discovery, declared all the lands and resources in their “newly discovered” territories as owned by the Spanish Crown. Though it is no longer the Spanish crown but the state who owns these resources, the doctrine was contained in the past constitutions: the 1935, 1972 and 1987. Under Section 2, Art XII of the 1987 Constitution, contained the Regalian Doctrine which states: “ All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the state.”

From the lands of the public domain, the agricultural land, mineral land, national parks and reservations, and forest or timber land, only agricultural land can be alienated and disposed. Mineral, national parks and reservations, and forests or timber lands cannot be alienated and disposed. But these lands can be utilized by the state or leased to private individuals or corporations.

It is good to discuss the laws which reiterates the Regalian Doctrine, particularly on the inalienable and indisposable lands of the public domain. For instance, Presidential Decree 705 reiterates ownership of forest and timber lands, Republic Act 7586 governs the national parks and reservations, and RA 7942 governs the mineral lands.

For this issue, let us discuss how PD 705 affects indigenous peoples.

Passed during the time of Pres. Marcos in 1975, PD 705 is also known as the Forestry Reform Code. It declares that land of the public domain 18 % slope and over (or 10.2 degrees in slope or over) shall be classified as inalienable and indisposable. It also classified forest land as those falling above the said slope. To apply it to the Cordillera and other mountainous areas inhabited by indigenous peoples would mean their areas are forest land with the exceptions of lowland areas, which are below the 18% slope.

This same law provides that land falling under this category which was declared as alienable and disposable (and given Torrens Title) shall be reverted to the classification of forest land. Lands owned by indigenous peoples under the above category forms part of the forest. Hence, indigenous forest land, whether communally or clan owned, also forms part of the forest land and cannot be titled.

While this law recognized IP possession on places and abode and worship, burial grounds, and old clearings, it excludes from them (IP) production forest, commercial forest, and established plantations of forest trees and trees of economic value. By such, large areas of forests by IPs are part of the public domain as forest and can be subject of logging concessions.

Under this law, it criminalized the following acts without license agreement, lease, license or permit: cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other forest products; enters and occupies or possesses, or makes kaingin, grazing; pasturing; occupy for any length of time any portion of the national park system.

PD 705 actually criminalizes all IP activities in the declared forest. Yet the law failed to address the issue that the forests had been for years the IPs’ source of supplement for economic survival.

What happens to any person who violates any of the above-prohibited acts? PD 705 provides for a penal provision which provides fines and imprisonment. The cutting, gathering and/or collecting of timber and other forest products from any forest without license or permit are classified as theft or qualified theft and are provided punishment under the Revised Penal Code, as these acts are criminal. Aside the chance of being convicted of a criminal offense, the DENR are mandated to confiscate the forest products including conveyances used in the commission of the offense, which include tools and equipments for cutting such as saw, chainsaw, and bolo. Even motor vehicles used in transporting the forest products will be impounded.

PD 705 automatically declares as illegal the IP activities of cutting trees for firewood. It outlaws the IP system of use, management and utilization of their communal and clan-owned forests. In the Cordillera communities, the IPs had been practicing since the time of their ancestors a sustainable forest management. For instance, member of a clan can utilize their clan-owned forest, such as tayan, muyong, etc., but with the responsibility to ensure its conservation for their future children. For example, a married clan member can gather timber from the tayan for purpose of building a family house. Such is allowed by their clan’s tradition but after he is obligated to replace those trees used. And cutting of trees for building the house will only be allowed by the clan after the tayan has enough matured trees. This is an age-old indigenous system of forest conservation.

On the other hand, the vast forest is considered communally owned by the whole community. A communal forest can be utilized by any community member to supplement their survival, such as hunting and gathering, based on the customs and traditions of the community. However, each has an obligation for its conservation for future generations. This IP viewpoint on forest management is contradictory to the state’s viewpoint wherein forests can be subjected for commercial activities by individuals and corporations through license agreement, license, permit or lease. The forest is being seen by the state more for its commercial value which has led to the sorry state of our forests, and has greatly reduced the ecological balance. # nordis.net

By ALDWIN QUITASOL
www.nordis.net

If you want to know the temperature of your organization, put a thermometer in the leader’s mouth.” — Rick Warren

Workers feel secure in their workplace if they are members of a union. So much more if they are part of an active union with defined programs and officers who recognize their duties and responsibilities as labor leaders. They will love their union as their family especially if they have worked together in fruitful union actions that really uplifted the lives and welfare of all their members. And the most beneficial to the workers especially to members of the union is a well negotiated, substantial and good Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

It is the workers’ welfare as a group that is sacrificed if the officers expected to truly represent them waver in their stand to fight for the rights of their constituents. Instead of firmly grasping the interests of their members, they easily let go to the sweet talk and promises of the company bosses. They lose their balls and drop the value of their sweat and blood and that of their fellow workers at the bluffs and bullying of the company at the negotiating table.

Negotiators draw confidence from the solidness of the data behind their proposals and demands; from the strength of whom they represent, the readiness of their constituents to stand beside them throughout the battle of negotiating for what they deserve from the fruits of their labor. “Know the adversary, know yourself”; So as expected, they should have a thorough study and analysis not only of their side but also the potential of the party they are bargaining with. For the union’s side, the officers especially the committee in charge of research, at least should have a copy of the company’s financial statements. From there, they can approximate if not accurately compute the economic and non-economic proposals for the CBA.

No capitalists has ever said without question, “alright, if that is your demand, we find it justified, you can have it.” Instead they will look for out of this world reasons not to heed to the workers’ CBA proposals like they are in deep financial crisis or incurred big losses because of low production. As if the workers who are there everyday directly running the production line were dumb and could not perceive anything.

But then it also is dumber to say that “okay, we accept the company’s offer because we understand their situation and that they have difficulty complying to their obligation to pay our salaries and what is due to us.” It is absolutely disturbing if the union officers lack of will to push for what is the rightful share of the forces of production – the workers, even under company threats of continues dismissal of its regular workers and replace them with contractual workers. A tactic that eventually lessens the number of union members and breakdown their bargaining power.

To safeguard the union from falling apart, the members must be decisive and make timely moves to defend their rights. The union must always move as one and if there are officers undermining the union and the interests of their constituents, the workers have to make a choice.

In a basket of ripe tomatoes, the rotting one should be removed immediately so that it will not infect the good ones. # nordis.net