Binoe wants probe on tribe relocation
By Nidz Godino
“The right to stay in the territory and not to be removed therefrom is guaranteed right pursuant to Section 7(c) of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act…relocation is necessary as an exceptional measure, such relocation shall take place only with free and prior informed consent of the concerned Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs), and whenever possible, they shall be guaranteed the right to return to their ancestral domains, as soon as grounds cease to exist,” Sen. Robinhood “Robin” Padilla filed Senate Resolution 280 to get to the bottom of deaths of 24 members of tribe and injury to 30 others following landslides brought by Tropical Storm “Paeng.”
Binoe cited reports indicating Teduray tribe was forcibly relocated from Datu Odin Sinsuat town to a landslide-prone area at the foot of Mt. Minandar in Maguindanao del Norte.
He also wants to know who was remiss in their mandate to ensure rights of tribes to remain in their ancestral land whether it was National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) or Ministry of Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs in BARMM.
Earlier reports quoted Chieftain Timuay Alim Bandara of tribal indigenous group community Teduray as saying tribal community was forced out of their coastal homes to Sitio Tabunon, Barangay Kusiong, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Maguindanao del Norte in 2020 despite their protests.
The reports said such forced relocation was allegedly caused by “powerful person” who wanted to convert the place into a resort.
Padilla pushed for probe to be handled by Senate Committee on Cultural Communities and Muslim Affairs which he heads.
In his resolution, the senator noted area where tribe was relocated at the foot of Mt. Minandar was “prone to landslides.”
He also cited reports that 127 of 300 families affected by the supposedly forced relocation in December 2020 had petitioned NCIP and protested their transfer, but the agency did not respond.
Because of this, Padilla stressed the need to find out if Teduray tribe’s constitutional rights were violated.
In view of the foregoing, there is need to examine and review IPRA as well as mandate of NCIP of protecting rights and welfare of IPs, with end in view of amending provisions of IPRA,” he concluded.
ISKUP! 