Case One:

The
Manobos
of
Quezon
WHAT IS IPRA?
This is the Republic Act No. 8371 otherwise
known as Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of
1997.

WHAT IS ANCESTRAL DOMAIN?

This refers to all areas generally belonging to
indigenous cultural communities or indigenous
people.
• Certificate of Land Ownership • Community Based Forest
Award (CLOA) - A document Management Agreement
evidencing ownership of the land (CBFMA)- A production sharing
granted or awarded to the beneficiary agreement between the Department
by DAR, and contains the restrictions of Environment and Natural
and conditions provided for in RA Resources and forest communities
6657 and other applicable laws. to use and develop the forestland
• Certificate of Ancestral Domain and resources for duration of 25
Claim (CADC) – A title years.
acknowledging the claim of ICC/IPs • DENR Administrative Order 2
over their ancestral domains. (DAO 2) - Rules and Regulations
• Certificate of Ancestral Domain for the Identification, Delineation
Title (CADT) – A title formally and Recognition of Ancestral Land
recognizing the rights of possession and Domain Claims.
and ownership of ICC/IPs over their
ancestral domains identified and
delineated in accordance with this
law.

Significant
Terminologies
 Manobo’s
Fight for their
Right
1
• Don Manolo Fortich, a rancher, came into
the territories of the Manobos.
• Granted ‘user rights’ by the tribe leaders,
to raise cattles for a certain period of

9 time.
• Unknown to the Manobos, Fortich
expanded the areas through the

0 uncontrolled movement of his cattles.

• Frightened, the Manobos was forced to
retreat into the peripheries.

0
• Manolo Fortich’s heirs never returned the 1
9
lands of the Manobos.
• No legal paper to prove their ownership
nor a state law to justify their claims, the

4
Manobos failed to get back these lands.
• Manobos are considered squatters in their
own lands.

0
 Municipality of Manolo Fortich
Manolo Fortich, officially the Municipality of
Manolo Fortich ( Cebuano: Lungsod sa Manolo
Fortich; Tagalog: Bayan ng Manolo Fortich), is
a 1st class municipality in
the province of Bukidnon, Philippines.
According to the 2015 census, it has a
population of 100,210 people
Manolo Fortich used to be known as Maluko; it was
renamed in 1957. Maluko also happens to be the
name of one of the municipality's barangay.
Manolo Fortich is named after Don Manolo Fortich, a
provincial resident of Barrio Damilag being the first
Governor (1902-1914) of the District of Bukidnon.
On August 16, 2018, Representative Maria Lourdes
Acosta-Alba of Bukidnon's First District filed House
Bill 8115, which aims for the cityhood of Manolo
Fortich as a component city.
 1960 - 1970
• The sugar industry of the country was
developed.
• The development of the sugar industry
resulted in the massive dislocation of the
Manobos and intensified the land conflicts
between the Manobos and the plantation
owners.
1970-1980
• Process of dispossession continued with the
setting up of more ranches and the establishment
of Bukidnon Sugar Company (BUSCO) in
barangay Paitan.
• The development of the sugar industry was
pursued at the expense of the Manobos who
were forcibly evicted from their lands to give
way to sugarcane plantations.
• The late Datu Mansario Agdahan and 14 other
Manobo elders were duped into signing blank
papers, which eventually lead to their ejectment.
• Series of attempts by succeeding Manobo
generations, to regain lands from sugarcane
plantation owners and BUSCO, but with no
legal basis, their efforts were in vain.
 • The owners of the Rang-ay Farms,
Inc., Silangan investors and
Management, Inc., and Escaño
Hermanos, Inc., forged an AGRO-
FORESTRY FARM LEASE
AGREEMENT (AFFLA) with the
DENR for a period of 25 years.

AUGUST 31, 1984

• The AFFLAs were cancelled by the DENR for
gross violation of the agreements.
• Bolstered by this development, some Manobos
formed the Samahan Pangkabuhayan Pulangihon
(SAKAMPU).
• SAKAMPU applied for a tenurial instrument with
the DENR, and was granted with individual
stewardship contracts for a period of 25 years.

1988
1
• SAKAMPU applied for a CBFMA
with the DENR.
• Through CBFMA, the SAKAMPU’s

9
contracts under individual stewardship
were fused into a collective
stewardship. Members occupied the

9
areas covered by Escaño Hermanos
farm.
• DAO 2 gave fresh hope to the

2
Manobos’ struggle.
• The claim-making process is bloody and
tumultuous.
• Manobos applied for 12, 430 hectares of land,
but the scope of the claim, due to existence of
other property claims, was reduced to 2,093
hectares (17% of the original claim) only.
• According to Community environment and
Natural Resource Office (CENRO):
-6, 097 hectares are titled lands
-3, 461.9 hectares are timberlands
-Undetermined remaining areas
• 2, 0 9 3 h e c t a r e s
-Highly contested, there are numerous rights holders
with different sets of claims.
-Issuing of Certificate of Land Ownership Award to
non-IP landless peasants.
-Claims of the members of Merangeran Farmers
Association (MERFASI), an affiliate of the free farmers.
-Quezon Farmers Cooperative (QUEFACO) bought
lands from SAKAMPU members to secure their place
in the disputed areas.
• Given the competing claims, Manobos formed the Quezon
Manobo Tribes Association (QUEMTRAS) to unify their
claim-making efforts and secure their rights over their
ancestral domain.
• Comprises the leaders and members of 4 Manobo clans:
 Anglao
 Subog
 Manahan
 Sumin-ao
• Despite the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT’s command to
DENR to maintain the status quo by not issuing
stewardship agreements to other parties until further orders
of the court, QUEMTRAS, submitted its application for a
CADC (August 12, 1994).
• The Provincial special task force endorsed their
application to the DENR Regional office in Cagayan
de Oro.
• The Manobos held a picket outside the office of the
regional director, supported by NGOs such as
Philippine Association for intercultural development,
Task force detainees of the Philippines, Panagtagbo
and Balay-Mindanao. The regional director was
forced to process and forward the application for
CADC to the central office.
 1
• No action for 4 years.
• May 12, 1988- With the support of the
Community aid abroad (CAA), 35

9
MANOBO leaders went to DENR
central office and undertook an
encampment outside to pressure the

9
Secretary to approve their CADC
application.
• Media popularized the Manobos

8
situation at national level.
• Managed to get support from church groups,
and even visited Jamie Cardinal Sin. Five
days after the visitation, the DENR issued
their CADC covering 2, 093 hectares only.
• Without intervention of the church and other
societal factors, issuance of CADC will not be
guaranteed due to plantation owners who
wielded political power.
BETWEEN AUGUST & DECEMBER
1999
• Holders of cancelled AFFLAs prevented QUEMTRAS
members from assuming ownership of their land.
• The Manobos then sought intervention of the local
church and local government officials but the
plantation owners were unyielding when Fr. Dodge
Tabios and the Quezon mayor facilitated a series of
dialogues to arrive at a compromise.
• The Manobos were forced to undertake land
occupation attempts but heavily armed men blocked
their entry, wherein 4 people were killed in the violent
dispersal.
M A R C H 1 2, 2 0 0 1
• MANOBOS were installed in their claimed
areas.
• President Arroyo affirmed the Estrada
derivative to install the CADC holders.
• AFFLA holders filed a case in court
questioning the President’s decision but were
dismissed on the condition that CADC
holders withdraw the criminal charges filed
against the plantation owners.
 AUGUST 5, 2002
• The Manobos filed for the conversion of their CADC into CADT.
• Their application is yet to be approved due to an adverse claims by
their relatives.
1. Land dispute between CADT claimants and Bae Kayang’s
group.
- Bae Kayang, former president of SAKAMPU, and other
SAKAMPU members who sold their rights to non-IP peasants
lodged their ancestral claims within the CADC areas.
2. Land dispute between CADT claimants and SAKAMPU.
- SAKAMPU argued their rights on the basis of the
ISF/CBFM contract within the DENR.
• NCIP wanted them to resolve their issues before the approval of their
CADT.
 A
Rift
or
Solidarity?
• Datu Carlito Anglao (ANGLAO CLAN) was
selected to represent the organization in lieu of Datu
Manahan(MANAHAN CLAN), who opted to lie
low.
• Datu Anglao was relentless in pursuing claim with
the support of his clan members.
• Not all clans are active in the whole claim-making
process. Only the Anglao and Subog clans joined
the encampment in Quezon City.
• Manahans, Subogs and the Sumin-aos turned away
from the series of land occupation attempts.
• Yet, the Manahans and the Sumin-aos were the first
ones to settle in the claimed areas after the order of
President Arroyo.
• Internal disputes resurfaced and are expressed
strongly in the leadership question and the
delineation of boundary.
• Three clan leaders questioned the leadership of Datu
Anglao as the representative of the four clans
because of his matrilineal lineage.
• Wife of Datu Manahan wanted to be the leader since
it entails access to opportunities and benefit streams.
• The Subog clan was interested in the title that will
be given once the CADT application is approved.
• The 4 clans set up temporary boundaries, but then
the issue of trespassing charges emerged.
• Towards the end of 2003, the claimed areas were
still rife with tension, and internal bickering
continues.
 Insecurity in the
Use and
Management
of their
Ancestral
Domain
1. Except for the Anglao clan, the rest of the clans prefer to
manage their own share of the pie and let their leaders define
the system of land allocation and tenure regulation.
 Members of the Anglao clan have chosen to wait for the
issuance of CADT before distributing the lands,
although each family has been allocated a residential
lot.
 Datu Manahan and his wife became de facto landlords.
They decide on size and mode of land allocation, and
compel members to give 10% of the gross harvest. They
also take back lands from members who are unable to
make the land productive or fail to produce good
harvest.
 No clear policies on land allocation
among Subog clan, though they hinted
that the Datu decides how much a
member gets.
 Within the Sumin-ao clan, a member of
the council who is half-Manobo and
half-Bisaya dominates the decision-
making process and can even allocate
more lands for herself and immediate
family.
2. The leaders of the Sumin-ao, Manahan and Subog
clans have been disobliging in developing the 100-
hectare communal farm, which they have set up
along the leader of Anglao clan.
100-hectare divided into the 4 clans.
Anglao clan continued to develop the 25-
hectare land as a communal farm of their clan.
They borrowed funds from DOLE to finance
the production of sugarcane within the 10
hectares of the communal farm.
3. There is rampant selling of use rights, mortgaging,
and offering for lease ancestral lands by member-
beneficiaries from the four clans because they do
not have capital to make the claimed lands
productive.
4. A state provision to develop the ancestral lands is
also absent.