20 February 2026
Re: Call for inputs: Demarcation, registration and titling of Indigenous Peoples' lands, territories and resources
Issued by: Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples
Deadline: 20 February 2026
Submission for the report to the 81st Session of the General Assembly – Philippines/MIMAROPA (Region IV-B), SOCCKSARGEN (Region XII), BARMM, Region III, CAR, Region VIII (Caraga)/Tagbanua, Tinonanon Monubu, Kulamanen Menuvu, Teduray-Lambangian, Tagbanua, Palaw’an, Ibaloy, Kankanaey, Ayta Hungey, Mangyan, Mamanwa/Tebtebba Foundation Inc.
Legal recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ lands:
Are Indigenous Peoples’ land rights (land, territories and resources) legally recognised in a constitution, law, or policy?
Yes. Indigenous Peoples’ land rights are legally recognized in the Philippine Constitution. This recognition is made stronger by the Indigenous Peoples Rights Law (IPRA) or Republic Act No. 8731 of 1997, the landmark law that recognizes the rights of Indigenous Peoples, aside from their basic human rights. The IPRA then echoes the tenets enshrined in the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples and has even been created way before the Declaration.
What is the scope of these recognised rights (full property/ownership, access, use, control, exclusion, sub‑surface rights, benefit‑sharing)?
The recognized rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines cover full property ownership, access, use, and control of their territories, lands and resources.
Are customary territories, including waters/marine areas, and traditional governance institutions legally recognised as pre‑existing rights?
Yes, they are. The IPRA covers restitution and reparation for historical injustices, including the illegal seizure of land and cultural property. IPRA aims to correct historical abuses against Indigenous Peoples by recognizing their right to ancestral domains, self-governance, and cultural integrity.
Do those recognised land rights include restitution or compensation for historical dispossession?
Yes, the IPRA was made to correct historical dispossession of Indigenous Peoples’ lands, invoking the use of “native title” to cover ownership of their ancestral lands and domains.
Would you consider that the current local legal recognition is aligned with the UNDRIP? If not, what are the elements that are missing or not aligned?
Yes, the local legal recognition of Indigenous Peoples rights is aligned with the UNDRIP. However, the exercise of this local law is problematic as there are differing ways by which the local law, IPRA, is interpreted, acknowledged and enforced.
If there is no legal recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ land rights, what are the current practices that are in place instead?
To make the IPRA more effective or even exercised at the local level, some municipalities create and adopt their own Indigenous Peoples (IP) code that is aligned with the UNDRIP and the IPRA.
For instance, in the municipality of Arakan in the province of North Cotabato in the southern part of the Philippines, their local IP code was a landmark document designed to protect and promote the rights of the indigenous communities within its jurisdiction, specifically the Tinonanon Monubu and Kulamanen Menuvu Indigenous Peoples. Included in the Arakan IP code are the following: (1) recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ ancestral domains in the area, (2) indigenous governance and structure, (3) sustainable resource management, (4) policies protecting Indigenous Peoples in the area, (5) strengthened representation of Indigenous Peoples in decision-making spaces, and (6) advocacy for the replication of the Arakan IP code in other areas.
Physical marking of Indigenous Peoples’ land rights:
Are Indigenous Peoples’ lands demarcated and titled?
Indigenous Peoples’ lands and territories have been demarcated in the Philippines since time immemorial with the use of a native title , with traditional boundary markers recognized in their areas by their neighbors (i.e., neighbor Indigenous Peoples groups, other major ethnolinguistic groups in their corresponding areas). However, many of these boundaries have been impacted by modern state government demarcations, illegal encroachment in Indigenous Peoples lands, the increase of conflicting land tenure instruments , development projects (i.e., extractive industries, government-funded roads and infrastructure) that cut into Indigenous Peoples lands without proper free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
All these are still ongoing issues despite the presence of the IPRA which, by all accounts, was made to safeguard and promote the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the country over their lands, territories and resources.
How is the demarcation done?
Nevertheless, the IPRA provides for a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) to formalize Indigenous Peoples’ claims to their ancestral domains, aiming to stop illegal encroachment and strengthen the need for FPIC.
Download full submission
