Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
in Education: A Policy Initiative in the Philippines
Marie Lourie Victor and Belmer YanoI

ndigenous communities1 in the Philippines have been advocating foralmost ive decades for an education that is sensitive to, and relectiveof, their cultural context, aspirations and concerns. his advocacy has
intensiied during the last twenty ive years in light of increasing number ofindigenous schools or education programs established and managed by theindigenous communities despite the existence of public schools in the area.
his highlights the growing dissatisfaction of the indigenous communities
with the educational system of the government, and their strong desire toprovide an education that is deemed appropriate to their children and youth.
he Philippine Department of Education (DepEd) responded with a national educational policy, the irst comprehensive rights-based educational
policy framework of the government.
his interface of perspectives concerning indigenous peoples’ concept
of education is a rare example of policy development. his educational policy demonstrates that the “rights” concept is not just a topic to be integrated
into the school curriculum. Rather, rights should be meaningfully appliedin policy-making in order to realize an education that is responsive and relevant to the situation of indigenous children and youth.
National Educational Policy
he Secretary (Armin A. Luistro) of DepEd signed Department Order 62
s. 2011 (DO62) entitled, “Adopting the National Indigenous Peoples (IP)
Education Policy Framework”2 on 8 August 2011. He noted in his speechthat DO62 was DepEd’s modest contribution to the celebration of the World
Indigenous People’s Day for that year. his international day is celebrated
on August 9 of each year. He emphasized that DO62 aimed “to create an
educational system [that was] inclusive and respectful of learners belonging
his article discusses how this educational policy relects the interface of the government’s perspective with the customary perspective of indigenous communities pertinent toeducation.

133

134

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

to the minority groups,” and that the country’s basic education should be
one that would “…recognize and promote the rights and welfare of indigenous peoples to enable them to face various social realities and challenges”(Calleja, 2011).
Secretary Luistro stressed further that DO62
recognizes the faults of the past. It is an invitation for us tochange our perspective – the glasses that we normally use to see
reality –and exchange that with a perspective that allows us toreally be inclusive. Furthermore, it is an invitation to learn with,not just teach in, indigenous communities that have always beenon the sidelines (IPsEO, 2012).
he signing of DO62 was the culmination of a three-year journey ofthe indigenous communities in their dialogue with DepEd towards a rightsbased, comprehensive, and systemic policy on culturally responsive education for indigenous children and youth. Previous eforts of indigenous communities and their partners in engaging DepEd on policy directives werelimited to speciic concerns (e.g., recognition of community-based schools
in indigenous peoples’ areas, production of educational resources), local
in scope (regional, division, school levels), and tended to focus on service
delivery.
DO62 is the irst national educational policy that interfaces the customary perspective of indigenous communities with that of the national government. Its birth is also the beginning of a long-term commitment of both theindigenous communities and DepEd in making the policy objectives concrete realities for indigenous children and youth.
Education for Self-determination
The educational perspective of the communities of indigenous peoples in
the Philippines parallels the international concepts on indigenous education.
The educational philosophy of these educational initiatives are akin to theconcept of Indigenous Learning Systems (ils) which provide that a community nurtures into personhood each generation of children, with the
expectation that the succeeding generations will take on the responsibilities that will assure the continuing life and development of the community.
The understanding and articulation of indigenous knowledge and wisdom

Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education135

by these Philippine indigenous educational initiatives also ind similarity
with the Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (iksps) that bringto life the indigenous systems and practices and are continually enrichedby the succeeding generations. Since the iksps are expressed collectively byindigenous communities through time as their way of life – what we today
call culture - they become foundational and inherent to the wellbeing andsense of collective and personal identity of these communities.
Viewed this way, education and culture are thus understood to be intrinsically intertwined, and are central to the life of the community.
The formal education system in the Philippines had not addressed this
aspect of indigenous peoples’ educational needs. The indigenous peoples
instead encountered barriers to inishing schooling. Aside from the usual
problem of access to and quality of education in the school system thatcaused high drop-out rate among indigenous children, there were hidden
barriers such as the following:• Experiences of discrimination based on one’s ethnic identity,
considered to be “native” or “tribal;”• Diiculties with the language of learning because the language
used in school was diferent from what was used at home and in
the community. The inconsistency of languages used hindered thedevelopment of learning skills and comprehension of topics being
discussed;• Comprehension diiculties because the social and cultural contexts of the lessons difered very much from the realities of theindigenous children’s communities; and• Cognitive dissonance and personal tensions that became tensions
in the family and community because their identity and the way oflife practiced at home and in the community were negated and/or
considered primitive and backward in school.
As summarized in a consolidated national study by the Episcopal
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (2008), these hidden barriers havebrought about the “alienation of indigenous youth from their own communities, heritage, culture and history.” he impact of this alienation of indigenous youth on the community was summed up by community elders who
posed the questions:3• What will happen to our culture if our youth see it as primitive,
backward and something to throw away?

136

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C•What will happen to our sense of community if our children experience their indigenous identity as a source of shame?
What will happen to our intergenerational relationships if theyounger generation continuess to view the elders and culture-bearers in the community (which includes their grandparents) as obsolete and backward?
What will happen to our ancestral domains if our youth do not value them as an inheritance from our ancestors, to be cared for anddeveloped for their generation and the coming generations?

••hese were life and death questions that indigenous communities had
to face by asserting self-determination. It was from this impetus that theindigenous communities in various parts of the country started to conceptualize, organize and manage their own community-based education programs as far back as the 1970s. While expressed in varied ways, the common
threads across these initiatives were the following features:• A strong advocacy for culture-based educational programming;• The ancestral domain4 as the learning space and purpose of
education;• Inclusion of community history in the educational content;• Conscious efort to nurture and airm the learner’s indigenous
identity;• Integration of ils and iksps in the curriculum; and• Promotion of indigenous peoples’ rights and welfare.
he synthesized aspirations articulated during the 2004 forum on“Developing a Culturally-Appropriate Education System for Filipino
Indigenous Peoples Towards Sustainable Development” (Buasen, 2006)
and during the 2005 National Assembly on Indigenous Education (Buasen,2006) summarize the key features of an indigenous education:• It develops their rootedness and security in their identity as
indigenous youth;• It nurtures and cultivates their indigenous ways and traditions;• It instills in them the need to protect and care for their ancestral
domains;• It supports their right to self-determination; andActualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education•

137

It promotes the well-being of both the whole community and eachmember of the community.

Decadess of implementing and discussing educational initiatives in indigenous communities show the essential role of culture. The civil society
network subsequently adopted the term “IP Education (iped)” to refer tosuch initiatives.
Before laws that protected the rights of indigenous peoples were enacted, the indigenous communities assert the need for culture-responsive
education based on the moral assertion of human dignity; that all peoples
regardless of their cultural background and all indigenous communities
have an inherent right to be respected and accepted. his comes from acustomary governance perspective that looks at the inherent dignity of each
culture, even though inter-community tensions or conlicts exist. With the1987 Constitution, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (ipra) in 1997, andthe 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(undrip), the advocacy for iped gained legal basis.
he 1987 Constitution commits the State to “recognize, respect, andprotect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultural structures, traditions, and institutions” (Article XIV,
Section 17), including indigenous learning systems (Article XIV, Section
2.4).
he right of indigenous peoples to develop their own educational
al systems is further supported by ipra that requires the State to “provide equal
access to various cultural opportunities to the iccs/IPs [indigenous culturalcommunities/indigenous peoples] through the educational system, public
or private cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives without prejudice to their right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions by providing education in their own language, in amanner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning ”(Section 30). (emphasis added)
At the international level, undrip provides for the right of IPs “to establish and control their education systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning” (Art. 14.1, page 7).
The indigenous communities want an education that primarily nurtures
the cultural wellbeing and personhood of their young. This becomes the138

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

foundation for developing other competencies that can enable them and,
subsequently, the indigenous communities to contribute to nation-building.
Fulfilling International Commitments
While the journey of indigenous communitiess in articulatinging culture-responsive education meant valuing and protecting their roots through theassertion of self-determination, the journey of the DepEd in recognizing
culture-responsive education was strongly inluenced by international developments that impinged on national directions for education. Before theinfluence of international educational development affected DepEd, any callfor culture-responsive education by the indigenous communities was met
with the institutional stance that the curriculum of the national education
system could not be modiied and the formal education of all children andyouth regardless of their socio-economic and cultural backgrounds should
be based on it.
At least two major inluences facilitated the DepEd’s openness to theeducational concerns of indigenous communities: international agreements
particularly the Education for All (1990) and the Millennium Development
Goals (2000); and the increased awareness and understanding about rights.
International declarations
he 1990 World Declaration on Education For All (also known as
Jomtien Declaration) had the theme “Meeting Basic Learning Needs”
and emphasized the promotion of equity, focus on learning, broadenedmeans and scope of basic education, enhanced learning environment andstrengthening partnerships. he Jomtien Declaration cites the need to remove educational disparities regarding the underserved groups (including
indigenous peoples). Its preamble recognizes that “traditional knowledge
and indigenous cultural heritage have a value and validity in their own rightand a capacity to both deine and promote development.” he 2000 Dakar
Framework for Action (with the theme “Education For All: Meeting Our
Collective Commitments”) has aimed at “ensuring that by 2015 all children,
particularly girls, children in diicult circumstances and those belonging to
ethnic minorities, have access to and complete, free and compulsory primary education of good quality” (Section 7i). (emphasis added)

Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

139

As a follow-up to the 2000 Dakar Framework for Action, the 2000 Asiaand the Paciic Regional Framework for Action: Education for All (adopted
by countries in the region including the Philippines) stresses that programsin early childhood care and education (ecce) “must promote the child’s optimum physical, psycho-social, emotional, cognitive and linguistic development in ways that are culturally and socially relevant.” he section on basic
learning and skills programs provides that “[V]alues and cultural identity
and their preservation must continue to ind a prominent place in all learning programmes and teaching practices.” Basic literacy and numeracy skills
must also “adopt participatory, age-appropriate, culturally sensitive and integrated approaches…”5hese international declarations made the cultural dimension in education more signiicant.
he United Nations Millennium Declaration in 2000 further bolstered
the directions of efa especially with Millennium Development Goal (MDG)
2 on the universal access to primary education (United Nations, 2000, page5).
he Philippines, in response to these calls, formulated the Philippine
efa 2015 National Action Plan which serves as the main framework to guidebasic education reforms in the country until 2015. To further systematize
these reforms and assure their alignment with international commitments
and their responsiveness to the identiied issues and concerns of the education sector in the country, DepEd conceptualized the Basic Education
Sector Reform Agenda (besra). Both the Philippine efa 2015 National
Action Plan and besra provide a roadmap to meet the targets of efa andthe mdgs (DepEd, 2008).
he Plan enumerated nine speciic tasks, including the task to “accelerate articulation, enrichment and development of the basic education curriculum in the context of the pillars of the new functional literacy.” Besra,on the other hand, identiied as one of its ive Key Reform hrusts (krts)“desired learning outcomes enhanced by the National Learning Strategies,
Multi-sectoral Coordination and Quality Assurance.” Indigenous education
was seen as one of the needed initiatives to meet these commitments.
In March 2008, the Indigenous Peoples Education Technical Working
Group was created through DO16, s. 2008 with the task of formulating policy recommendations to move action forward.

140

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

Discourse on rights
In the decades preceding efa, educational issues and concerns werediscussed from a frame of equitable delivery of education services and thedominant perspective was the needs-based approach. he discussions on
efa and the mdgs contributed to opening and shifting DepEd’s institutionalawareness to that of human rights and the rights-based approach. Amongcivil society groups, rights as a discourse was natural and even foundational,
but for government institutions like DepEd, human rights was associated atthat time with lawyers and civil society groups.
he Dakar Framework, for example, strongly articulates education in
the context of human rights and not just as a social service that government
agencies have to deliver (unesco, page 8). Further, it stresses that the rightto education is fundamental in pursuing sustainable development, thereby
linking education directions to national development goals with an anchorage on rights. Also highlighted in the Dakar framework is the importanceof working with “civil society in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of strategies for educational development” (unesco, page 8).
Mdgss are also articulated primarily from the perspective of rights andthis frames the discussion about the equitable distribution of social services.
he seven mdgs are viewed as concrete international targets to meet thebasic human rights of every person to health, education, shelter and security(Millennium Project, 2006).
With the mandate to align educational policies with efa and the mdgs,
the DepEd became more exposed to the discourse on rights from the 1990s
onward.
Several eforts at the national level related to promoting human rights
further widened the institutional consciousness of DepEd regarding therights discourse. In July 2002, the Philippine Congress enacted Republic
Act 9201, “An Act Declaring December 4 to 10 as National Human Rights
Consciousness Week in the Country and for Other Purposes,”,”” which enjoined all government oices and educational institutions, both private andpublic, to celebrate Human Rights Week. DepEd issued DO31 s. 2003 that
required the celebration of Human Rights Week every December of the year.
In May 2003, DepEd, in partnership with the Commission on Human Rightsof the Philippines (chrp), undertook its initial activities to integrate humanrights in the national curriculum (DepEd Memorandum 160, s. 2003), andby 2004, the irst training of trainors on human rights education was held

Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

141(DepEd Memorandum 16, s. 2004). All Divisions of the Department werethen enjoined to include human rights in their in-service training (inset)
for teachers from May 2004 to 2005 (DepEd Memorandum 130, s. 2004).
In 2005, with the enactment of the Republic Act 7610, “Special Protectionof Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,”
DepEd issued Memorandum 297, s. 2006 that listed acts violating this law,
including “any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being.”
DepEd supported the chrp-organized First National Educators’
Congress on Human Rights in 2009 by encouraging Social Studies supervisors and master teachers to attend (DepEd Memorandum 515, s. 2009). By
this time, the words “human rights” became more or less familiar to teachers at the school level, even as their understanding and practice still needed
to be deepened.
In the same decade that these two major inluences unfolded, several Department Orders directly related to the educational concerns ofindigenous communities were released that hinged on the recognition of
their rights and on the ongoing eforts
eforts to achieve the country’s commitments to efa and the mdgs.
DO42 s 2004 (Permit to Operate Primary Schools for Indigenous
Peoples and Cultural Communities) recognized the right of indigenous
communities to initiate and manage their own educational initiatives andspeciied lexibility in the criteria to be used in assessing such schools should
they be interested to seek recognition from DepEd as private schools. Up
until 2004, the criteria for recognition of private schools did not include
cultural and environmental considerations. With DO��,, the school calendar could be adjusted according to the weather conditions of the locality,community resource persons were allowed to teach topics related to culture
regardless of their academic background, and enhancements of the national
school curriculum were allowed as long as the core learning competencies
remained untouched.
In 2010, DepEd’s Bureau of Alternative Learning Systems (bals) released
the Alternative Learning System (als) Core Curriculum for Indigenous
Peoples. To assure appropriate attention to this material at the Divisions
level, DepEd explicitly stated (under DO101, s. 2010) that this initiative wasin response to the call of efa to address the needs of marginalized students.

142

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

In the same year, DO23, s. 2010 (Adoption of the besra Accountability
Plan, 2010-2012: A Blueprint for Transforming the Basic Education Subsector) identified indigenous education
ducation as one of the main “foundation
foundation ac6
tions” for besra implementation (Section 3).
By the time the representatives of indigenous communities and DepEd
came together from 2009 to 2010 to discuss more comprehensive policy directions to address the needs of indigenous children and youth, the groundfor dialogue especially on the side of DepEd was fertile, and both parties
were ready to explore responsive innovations.
DO62: The Interface of Perspectives
The 2009-2010 consultations on crafting the national policy framework forindigenous people’s’ss education resulted in agreement on several main interface points that served as bases in formulating speciic educational policies
that included the cultural rights of indigenous peoples. DO6� is the main
educational policy that embodies the interface of perspectives.
DO62 reflects the following interface points:
a. he right of indigenous communities to culture-responsive quality
education;b. The right of indigenous peoples to self-governance, speciicallytheir right to participate in all levels of decision-making (Section 16, IPRA)
as their exercise of participation in national development.
DO62 considers “…education as a necessary means to realize otherhuman rights and fundamental freedoms…”7 One
ne can see that the recognition of rights of indigenous communities strongly inluenced DO62’s
formulation.
DO62 is also “intended to be an instrument for promoting shared accountability, continuous dialogue, engagement, and partnership among
government, IP [indigenous peoples] communities, civil society, and othereducation stakeholders.” It provides that the Indigenous Peoples Education
Program should subscribe to the “rights-based approach which gives primary importance to the principles of participation, inclusion, and empowerment.”8 hese provisions of DO62 implement the right of indigenous peoples to self-governance under ipra.

Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education143

he main policy statements of DO62 are comprised of a short introductory statement and seven policy statements on the major areas of thenational education system:• Access to education services;• Pedagogy, content and assessment;• Learning facilities and environment;• Teachers and learning facilitators;• Institutional support for the indigenous peoples education program;• Linkage and partnership for indigenous peoples education; and• Eradication of discrimination.
he short introductory statement provides another set of interface of
perspectives as shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1. Perspective Interfaces
Indigenous Communities

Perspective Interfaces

DepEd Mandate

Recognize the right of indigenous peoples to selfdetermination

Inclusive basic education in thecontext of indigenous children
and youth means:•
A national education
system that recognizes,
protects and promotes
the rights and welfare ofindigenous peoples•
Educational interventions
are to be developedin consultation withindigenous peoples•
Inclusion of indigenous
peoples’ history, culture,
identity and worldview
in the national education
systemProvision of inclusive
basic education
for all

Recognize the right of indigenous peoples toparticipate in national development
Recognize the right of indigenous peoples to an
education appropriate to their culture, aspirations,and needs
The main goal of education should be to enable
indigenous children and youth to contribute to theprotection and promotion of indigenous peoples
rights and welfare

The succeeding specific policies provide other points of interface of
perspectives.
Access to education services
Policy: “Ensure the provision of universal and equitable access of all
IPs [Indigenous Peoples] to quality and relevant basic education services

144

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

towards functional literacy for all.” Table � shows the points of interface of
perspectives in the full policy statement.
Table 2. Access to Education
Indigenous Communities

Perspective Interfaces

DepEd Mandate

Recognize the right of indigenous
peoples to access to education

Universal and equitable access of
all Indigenous peoples to quality
and relevant basic education
services towards functional literacy
for all

Provision of accessible education
for all students in the Philippines
towards functional literacy for all
through the formal school systemand the Alternative Learning
SystemRecognize and support
community-based educational
initiatives

Partnership between thegovernment and the civil society
and private sector organizationsin the provision of universal andequitable access to formal andalternative forms of education

Inclusion of relevant data regarding
indigenous children and youththat can serve as basis for policy
formulation for indigenous peoples
education

Both supply- and demand-side
interventions shall be expanded
and diversified as needed

It is notable that the access to education provision is not the usual build
more schools or strengthen the advocacy for indigenous children to enroll
policy. Rather,ather, the policy statement highlightss quality and relevant basic education, further deined as culture-responsive education. It further stresses
that the “demand-side,” which means community-initiated interventions,
are to be given as much attention as those that are generated by the “supplyside” or the DepEd.
he education programs and initiatives done by indigenous communities
over the previous decades are concrete examples of efort to address theconcern of this policy statement from the “demand side.” In most instances,these programs and initiatives are in places where DepEd has not yet extended its services. hese initiatives also address the quality dimension andnot just increased enrollment dimension of education.
Based on the research conducted by the Indigenous Peoples Education
Oice of DepEd, the earliest community-based initiative that attempted toaddress distance and education quality concerns of indigenous communities
is the Ikalahan Academy in Imugan, Santa Fe, Nueva Viscaya province innorthern Philippines. It was established by the Kalanguya community inActualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

145

1974 in response to their negative assessment of experience with what theycalled “lowland education.” In the 1970s, the distance of the nearest schools
from their communities required indigenous secondary school students tolive away from their families. The members of the Kalanguya community
noticed that their youth started to acquire habits and practices that were
contrary to the community’s values. They also observed rampant acts of discrimination against their young students.
In response, the Kalanguya community decided to establish their own
school with a curriculum that incorporated the community’s cultural context. Having been recognized by the DepEd as a private school, the Ikalahan
Academy is now entering its fifth decade of operations.9
While Ikalahan Academy met the recognition criteria of DepEd, manyother indigenous education programs in the country failed to meet thecriteria that were inapplicable or inappropriate to the context and situationof the indigenous communities.
ies.. Speciications
Speciications on school buildings, for example, were based on structures for lowland areas and not for structures
built in the uplands or interior mountain areas. he requirement for land title of the school site could not apply to schools within the ancestral domain
where right to land was a different concept from that of prevailing private
real property concept. here was also a tendency to view the curriculum ofthese initiatives as non-compliant with the national curriculum because of
the inclusion of topics related to the community’s culture (e.g., customary
law and local history) and curriculum modiications
modiications to relrelectect the perspective and worldview of the community.
The lack of DepEd recognition of these indigenous educational
initiatives led government-approved schools to refuse to acknowledge theeducational attainment of indigenous transferees for higher year level andthus were forced to start again from Grade 1.
In response to this situation and as a major step to actualize the accessto education policy statement, DepEd issued DO21, s. 2014 that specifies
the appropriate criteria for evaluating the various aspects of schools inindigenous communities, and provides clear procedures for applying such
criteria. As a result, forty-eight indigenous schools from diferent parts ofthe country have been recognized as of July 2014, most of them providing
primary school services in areas not reached by DepEd.

146

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I CPedagogy, content and assessment
Policy: “Adopt appropriate basic education pedagogy, content, and assessment through the integration of Indigenous Knowledge Systems andPractices (iksps) in all learning areas and processes.” Table 3 shows thepoints of interface of perspectives in the full policy statement.
Table 3. Pedagogy, Content and Assessment
Indigenous Communities

Perspective Interfaces

DepEd Mandate

Recognize the right of indigenous
peoples to cultural integrity

Actualization of the inclusion of
IKSPs and ILS in the national
education system through thefollowing:•
Integration of IKSPs and ILS
in the national education
system (indigenization of
the curriculum including theteaching-learning process
and learning assessment)•
Strengthening of mothertongue-based multilingual
education (MTB-MLE) for
indigenous students•
Strengthening of alternativemodes of delivery (ADMs)
of basic education services,
particularly in geographicallyisolated and disadvantaged
areas (GIDA)

Implementation of cultureresponsive education in thecontext of indigenous communities

Recognize and include IKSPs asvalid knowledge to be learned in
the classroom
Recognize ILS as the education
systems of indigenous
communities and their inclusion in
the national education system

Implementation of MTB-MLE
Provision of basic education
services through alternative modesof delivery particularly in GIDA

During the past fifteen years, the indigenous communities have been
consistently asserting the inclusion of iksps and ils in the content, teaching-learning process and learning assessment of indigenous children andyouth. Since the 1970s, community-based initiatives have been attempting
in various ways to interface the iksps and ils with the national curriculum;
resulting in a variety of curriculum modiications that were not recognized
by DepEd. These curriculum modiications also integrated the indigenous
peoples’ history and, later on, indigenous peoples’ rights. These curriculum
enhancement efforts were known as indigenization of the education system.
A community-based initiative that can serve as an example of the interface of iksps, ils and community learning assessment with the national curriculum is that of the Paaralang Mangyan na Angkop sa Kulturang
Aalagaan or pamanaka (Mangyan School Appropriate to the Culture Being

Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

147

Cared For).10 Pamanaka is an initiative of the indigenous communities ofOccidental Mindoro province that started in 1998 and focused on secondary
school education. The indigenous communities were hopeful that thepamanaka graduates would eventually inish college courses and become
useful to their respective communities. The community leaders strongly
wanted pamanaka to be culture-based in its curriculum and school management. With these directives, pamanaka from the very beginning explored the indigenization of the national curriculum. Over several years,
pamanaka was able to enhance the national curriculum through the integration of community competencies in various topics, as well as the inclusion of the community teaching styles and forms of assessment. As muchas possible, topics were scheduled and activities were designed according
to the community’s cultural life cycle to make learning practical and easily
applicable. Storytelling was used as a teaching strategy when appropriateeven in the science and mathematics subjects, with elders being prioritizedas the storytellers. Learning assessment might include community members
checking the output of learners since learning assessment was not limited topencil and paper test and was in the context of community life and realities.
When pamanaka established a primary school in 2005, more radical
innovations were undertaken. Hoping to be consistent with the ILS of thecommunity, the primary curriculum was designed not according to subject
areas; instead, community events were made the organizing elements of thecurriculum, with the subject area competencies being integrated and related
to community events for each month. In this way, the children’s learning
lowed fully with the life of the community, and the learning of subject areas
became embedded in the community activities. his was a radical departurefrom the subject-based national formal school curriculum.
With DO62, enhancements of the curriculum to include iksps, ils,
community history and indigenous peoples’ rights are now recognized. his
directly actualizes the right of indigenous peoples to cultural integrity. As
Table 3 above shows, the DepED mandate to provide culture-responsive
education which, strictly speaking, covers all indigenous communities in
the Philippines, is directly related to what the indigenous communities havebeen advocating for.
his is further supported by DO21, s. 2014 mentioned earlier which
recognizes curriculum enhancements for as long as it is aligned with thestandards of the national curriculum. he DepEd is also moving towards

148

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

adopting a national policy for the indigenization of the curriculum at the
local level.
Hoping to instill culture-sensitivity in the teaching-learning process,
DO51, s. 2014 titled “Guidelines on the Conduct of Activities and Use ofMaterials Involving Aspects of Indigenous Peoples Culture” was issued in
December 2014 to guide teachers and school heads on holding culturalactivities and/or use indigenous community artifacts, clothing and othermaterials in the process of indigenizing their lessons. hese guidelines areanchored on the right of indigenous peoples to cultural integrity and theexercise of free, prior and informed consent.
Learning facilities and environment
Policy: “Provide adequate and culturally-appropriate learning resourcesand environment to IP learners.” Table � shows the points of interface of
perspectives in the full policy statement.
Table 4. Learning Facilities and Environment
Indigenous Communities

Perspective Interfaces

DepEd Mandate

Construct infrastructures that areappropriate to the geographicallocation of the community

Recognition of the needfor culturally-sensitive andgeographically appropriate
structures and learning
environments/spaces

Provision of classrooms andlearning materials

Design learning spaces in ways
attuned to the learning sensibilityof indigenous children and youth
Recognize the right of indigenous
communities to cultural integrity
through the following:•
Development of learningmaterials that are culturallyappropriate•
Recognition of thecommunity’s collective
ownership of its IKSPs•
Recognition of the right tofree, prior and informed
consent (FPIC)

Provision of educational resources
for teachers and students

Production of communitybased and community-initiatededucation resources, including
research materials that will serve
as reference for curriculum
development
Recognition and upholding ofcommunity’s communal intellectual
property rights

his policy statement addresses the concern for appropriate infrastructure and learning spaces, and the provision of education resources that areActualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

149

culture-sensitive and as much as possible, generated by and with the community itself.
For community-based initiatives, the ancestral territory has always
been considered the “classroom,”,”” and learning spaces like the usual classroom were considered as just one of the venues for learning. hus, classes
were held in various parts of the community depending on the topic and theappropriateness to the lessons. he construction of classrooms, on the other
hand, was largely determined by resources available, the terrain of the community, weather conditions, and cultural considerations.
While the government previously prescribed the building and campus
ground speciications for all schools whether private or public with theintention of assuring quality facilities for students,s, the DepEd
Ed now recognizes cultural and geographical considerations in building structures inindigenous communities. Guided by this understanding, discussions areunder way in the DepEd regarding additional designs that can be considered
for public school structures to be constructed in the areas of indigenous
communities. DO21, s. 2014 allows lexibility in the design of classrooms
given the cultural and geographical conditions of community-based schoolsthat are seeking recognition from the government.
With regards to educational resources, further steps are needed tocomprehensively address this concern. As a start, DO51, s. 2014 provides
some guidelines to assure that educational resources featuring the cultureof indigenous communities (including writings/publications about them)undergo the proper process of consent-seeking, proper acknowledgementof the community/ies involved, and validation.
Teachers and learning facilitators
Policy: “Strengthen the hiring, deployment, and continuous development of teachers and learning facilitators in the implementation of its IP
Education Program.” Table 5 shows the points of interface of perspectives in
the full policy statement.

150

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I CTable 5. Teachers and Learning Facilitators
Indigenous Communities

Perspective Interfaces

DepEd Mandate

Support culture-responsive
education through the following:•
Assignment of teachers
who are from the area of
the indigenous community
and who know the cultureof the indigenous children
and youth•
Adequate preparation ofteachers who are to be
assigned in indigenous
peoples’ areas

Provision of the following toactualize the right to cultureresponsive education:•
Policies and subsequentactions to look into teachers
assigned to indigenous
communities•
Capacity-building ofteachers before being
fielded to indigenous
communities and provisionof incentives•
Support for indigenous
teachers who want to teachin their communities•
Support for culture-bearers
and community members
as part of the teachinglearning process

Provision of teachers for all publicschools

Support indigenous peoples who
are taking education courses sothat they can have the needed
qualifications to apply for teachingposts in DepED and hopefully, beassigned to their own community

Adequate preparation andcapacity-building of teachers fortheir assignment
Provision of adequate incentive forteachers teaching in far-flung areas

Inclusion of culture bearers andother community members in theteaching-learning process

Indigenous peoples consistently raise the point that the teacher is a key
factor in the implementation of a culture-responsive education. It is notenough that an adequate number of qualiied teachers are assigned to theschool; what is crucial is that the teacher has the proper perspective and disposition to relate with indigenous children and youth and their community,
and is adequately equipped to undertake the indigenization of the curriculum and the teaching-learning process.
One initiative that exempliies a responsive efort to the concerns for capacity development of teachers is that of Mangyan Mission in the provinceof Oriental Mindoro. Mangyan Mission is a Catholic church-based nongovernmental organization in Oriental Mindoro province committed to theconcerns and welfare of the indigenous communities in that province. In tripartite partnership with the provincial government and the DepEd Division
Oice of Oriental Mindoro, Mangyan Mission has been involved since 2005
in a capacity-building program called Programang Pang-Edukasyon sa
Kalibliban or PPSaKa (Education Program for the Hinterlands) which has

Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

151

a training component for teachers assigned in public schools with indigenous students.. hhee partnership established by the three institutions is a pioneering initiative in the Philippines, and aims to provide teachers with theneeded orientation and skills to efectively indigenize the teaching-learning
process. his advocacy of Mangyan Mission for capacity-building-buildingbuilding of teachers stemmed from the feedback of indigenous communities who were concerned about the cultural sensitivity of teachers in relation to indigenous
students and the inclusion of the cultural context in the curriculum.11
With the issuance of DO62, DepEd since 2013 has organized trainings
for teachers and school heads from schools serving indigenous children
and youth to equip them with the competencies to indigenize the teaching-learning process. his training also includes sessions that experientiallytackle the situation of indigenous peoples in the Philippines and their rights,
the history of iped and its legal bases. hese topics are foundational to implementing the iped Program.
his policy statement also recognizes the importance of community
members as part of the teaching-learning process and opens the possibilityof institutionalizing their involvement in this role at the school level. Having
community members as co-facilitators and resource persons has been aregular practice of community-based education eforts and is considered as
one key innovation of iped.
In response to the concern regarding teachers assigned to schools withindigenous children and youth, the DepEd included in the guidelines forteacher hiring for school year 2015-2016 (DO5 s 2015) the specii
speciicc criteria regarding familiarity with the indigenous community’s culture (e.g., capacity
to speak the community language) and their preparedness in implementing
indigenization process.
Institutional support for the IP Education Program
Policy: “Establish and strengthen appropriate multi-level units within DepEd responsible for planning, implementing, and monitoring IP
education[al] interventions.” Table 6 shows the points of interface of perspectives in the full policy statement.

152

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I CTable 6. Institutional Support for the Indigenous Peoples Education Program
Indigenous Communities

Perspective Interfaces

DepEd Mandate

Establish an office that will
specifically look into the needs ofindigenous children and youth andeducation concerns of indigenous
communities

Recognition of the need forinstitutional support for IPEd in theform of the following:•
Establishing a programand an office mandated tooperationalize the program•
Setting up of a network of
DepEd personnel assigned
as point persons for the
IPEd Program•
Provision of budget for the
IPEd Program

Establish needed mechanisms andprocesses to respond to the needsof students

Inclusion of a budget specificallyfor IPEd

Provision of an office, personnel,
and annual budget

With the issuance of DO6�, the DepEd immediately created a
program and an office that support the assertions of indigenous peoples
representatives regarding this concern. DO103, s. �011 (December �011
created the Indigenous Peoples Education Office (IPsEO). DepEd devoted
�01� to setting in place the needed institutional support for the national
implementation of the iped Program which included the following:a. Establishment of IPsEO’s oice and personnel;b. Appointment of focal persons for iped in all the Regional andDivision Offices to ensure that specific personnel of DepEd were in chargeof the IPEd Program at the local level; andc. Inclusion of an annual budget for the iped Program in the General
Appropriations for DepEd, assuring that it will have a regular budget fromthe national government.
Since 2013, all iped focal persons have been undergoing capacity-building activities to ensure that they coordinate activities with the proper perspective and disposition in their own areas of jurisdiction. Foundational totheir orientation was the discussion of indigenous peoples’ rights and therights-based approach as pillars in program implementation. Work in 2013
and 2014 focused on preparing the DepEd for school level implementationof the iped Program, which is the main focus for 2015.
Linkage and partnership for IP Education
Policy: “Expand and strengthen institutional and civil society linkages
to ensure proper coordination, knowledge-sharing, and sustainability of theActualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

153

IP Education Program.” Table 7 shows the points of interface of perspectives
in the full policy statement.
Table 7. Linkage and Partnership for the Indigenous Peoples Education
Indigenous Communities

Perspective Interfaces

DepEd Mandate

Implementation of IPEd Program
should involve indigenous
communities to assure that its
implementation especially at
the local level is anchored on
directions set by the community

Recognition of the right ofindigenous communities toself-determination as seen in thefollowing:•
Indigenous communities
are the primary partnersof DepEd in implementing
IPEd Program•
Establishment of
mechanisms toinstitutionalize thepartnership of DepEd withindigenous communities for
IPEd Program

Establish partnerships and linkages
for resource mobilization to
support DepEd programs

Linkage-building of DepEd
to gather support for IPEd
Program should be guided byconsiderations discussed with thecommunity

DepEd recognized, years before it identiied iped as a key concern, that
eforts on indigenous education in diferent parts of the country have been
initiated by indigenous communities and their partners. It appreciated theexperience of community-based initiatives in terms of indigenizing the curriculum and community-based management of an educational initiative
such as iped. hus, linkages and partnerships between these groups and
DepEd are strongly encouraged in this policy statement.
Also, applying the rights-based approach, DepEd recognizes itself as
the duty-bearer that should work with the rights-holders in iped as its partners. hus the indigenous communities are the primary partners of DepEd.
And agreements between DepEd (the duty-bearer) and the indigenous communities (the rights-holders) guide linkage-building eforts with other government agencies (co-duty bearers with DepEd).
To date, several indigenous communities have agreements with DepEd
regarding the co-management of schools that were initiated by the community and turned-over to DepEd. he agreements include provisions on
the continuing involvement of the community in school management, enhancement of the curriculum, and conduct of classes as appropriate. hesetypes of management arrangement actualize the recognition of the right ofindigenous communities to self-determination.

154

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

Eradication of discrimination
Policy: “Implement stronger airmative action to eradicate all forms of
discrimination against IPs in the entire Philippine educational system.” The
full policy statement has the following points of interface of perspectives:
Table 8. Eradication of Discrimination
Indigenous Communities

Perspective Interfaces

DepEd Mandate

Recognize the right of indigenous
communities to cultural integrity

Recognition of the right indigenous
communities to cultural integrity

Education for All

DepEd should address the various
forms of discrimination in the
education system

Affirmative action against
discrimination which include thefollowing:•
Ensuring that textbooks,
learning materials, andother learning resources
have no contents thatare discriminatory toor misrepresenting theindigenous peoples•
Integrating in the curriculum
the contribution ofindigenous peoples tonational history•
Institutionalizing therecognition of cultural rights
in general and the rights ofindigenous peoples

Respect for the rights of all
students
Recognition of the diversity ofstudents

his policy statement communicates DepEd’s recognition that acts of
discrimination against the cultures and identities of indigenous peoples
have indeed happened and continue to happen within the Department, andthat these contribute to the discriminatory view against indigenous peoples
in the wider society. These discrimination experiences constitute one of themain reasons why indigenous children do not to inish schooling. DepEd isequally conscious of its responsibility to change this perspective and mindset within the institution, and to advocate for the recognition of culturalrights in general and indigenous peoples’’ rights in particular to other duty-bearers. These are the reasons for the inclusion of this particular policy
statement in DO6�.

Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

155

Deepening the discourse on indigenous peoples’
s’’ rights in the implementation of the iped Program is one needed step to efect a change inperspective. he release of DO51, s. 2014, “Guidelines on the Conduct ofActivities and Use of Materials Involving Aspects of Indigenous Peoples
Culture” is a contribution in this direction. It was a direct response to theoften-mentioned issue regarding the abuse and misuse of cultural artifacts
and attire, and the inappropriate conduct or execution of cultural expressions (e.g., songs, dances, chants). Indigenous community representatives
have pointed out that such acts have contributed to the wrong notions about
indigenous peoples and their communities and a misunderstanding of cultural practices, leading to further prejudice and discrimination.
DO51 hopes to reverse this tide while instilling a consciousness for
cultural sensitivity in the whole DepED. It speciies protocols for the following: conduct of cultural presentations, festivals and such type of activities; the use of community artifacts, clothing/attire and symbols; and, theproduction of publications, videos and related materials. It also applies inthe ethical design of learning activities when tackling the culture of various
indigenous communities.
Lessons Learned and the Road Ahead
he discussion on the contents of DO62 shows thee critical role of identifying areas of interface of perspectives in formulating a meaningful national
policy framework for indigenous peoples’ education. The interface points
ensure that national educational policy would contain the perspective of
indigenous peoples in education.
What facilitated the interface process and the identiication of points ofinterface of perspectives leading to the adoption of the national educational
policy? Several factors can be cited as reasons for this process.
First, DepEd officials met with the representatives of indigenous
communities from all over the country in a series of consultations on theformulation of national educational policies for indigenous peoples. heindigenous communities view the DepEd with a degree of credibility despite
their negative experiences with the DepEd’s ield oices.
Second, the indigenous communities, especially those with their own
community-based education programs, maintain a strong sense of customary governance that forms the basis of their assertion of self-determination.

156

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

hird, both DepEd and the indigenous communities have clear perspectives, views and core assertions on education for indigenous children
and youth. Representatives of indigenous communities have been meeting
since 2000 to relect together and validate their collective understanding of
education and iped. DepEd, on the other hand, was clear about its mandates
and commitments.
Fourth, they listened with a sense of openness to each other’s context
and perspective. On the side of DepEd, it recognized its duty to upholdrights under the Constitution and laws. On the side of indigenous communities, their representatives were clear about their responsibility to assert
their rights as indigenous peoples.
Fifth, they were willing to identify speciic points of interface that led
to innovations and other possibilities, while recognizing their limits andboundaries. One example is the inclusion of culture bearers and other community members in the teaching-learning process. While this is a concrete
expression of interface, both parties were clear about the potentials, limits
and possible concerns in implementing this idea. DepEd understood thevalue of community members being part of the teaching-learning process,particularly how their presence would contribute to the indigenization process, and thus agreed to this idea as a policy direction. However, DepEd
clariied that given the existing government administrative system, the contribution of culture bearers and other community members would be remunerated diferently from that of teachers, and this was not due to any
discrimination against indigenous peoples.he community representatives,on the other hand, appreciated the openness of DepEd and recognized thesituation as an issue they both have to continue to work on in the future.
Sixth, they considered the diversity of situations of indigenous communities and the right of each community to decide on issues at its own
level. DepEd upheld the principle of shared governance that supported the
localization of policies. hus they agreed that while they formulated a national educational policy, it was not meant to be too speciic that would
prevent each indigenous community from making policy implementation
plan suited to local context.
Finally, there was a growing openness on the side of DepEd to own andaccept historical accountability for practices and policies that might havebeen inimical to the participation of indigenous children, youth and communities in the national education system in the past. his emerging clarity

Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

157

of DepEd stance as an institution was recognized by the indigenous communities and contributed strongly to their willingness to engage DepEd in
further discussions.
It is crucial that the understanding and practice of the interface process
keep permeating the DO62 implementation so as to maintain the policy’s
grounding and sense of direction. he interface process has to be applied
more at the community level where the policy implementation decisions
have to be made.
he enactment of the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 (Republic
Act 10533) augurs well for the continued implementation of DO62 since thelaw gives premium to the cultural dimension of education and is anchoredon efa and mdgs. he law recognizes the importance of developing the capacity of students to engage various cultures within and outside the country
and speciies cultural sensitivity as one of the standards of the curriculum.
It also speciies indigenization of the curriculum at the school level as oneof the curriculum standards, which directly supports the iped Program. helaw provides further grounding for DO62 implementation since the iped
Program is being articulated as a speciic form of implementation of therecently enhanced basic education curriculum.
With DepEd’s iped Program moving towards school-level implementation starting this school year (2015-2016), actualizing the indigenous
peoples’ rights in education is slowly unfolding. And as long as the interface of perspectives continues to permeate the implementation of the iped
Program, there is hope that the indigenous peoples’ rights in education willcontinue to unfold in the future.
References
Buasen, Carlos. 2006. “he Present Situation of IP Education in the Philippines.”
Presented during the 1st Conference of the Episcopal Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (ecip) on IP Education. May 10, 2006. Balindog, Kidapawan City.
Calleja, Nina. 2011. “DepEd approves plan for IP-sensitive educational system.”Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/38323/
deped-approves-plan-for-ip-sensitive-educational-system.
Congress of the Philippines. 1997. Republic Act No. 8371, “An Act to Recognize,
Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/
Indigenous Peoples, Creating a National Commission on Indigenous Peoples,
Establishing Implementing Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds herefor, andfor Other Purposes.” Oicial Gazette. Retrieved from www.gov.ph/1997/10/29/
republic-act-no-8371/.

158

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

Department of Education. 2003. Department Order 31 s 2003, “An Act Declaring
December 4 to 10 as National Human Rights Consciousness Week in theCountry and For Other Purposes.” Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/order/2003/DO_s2003_31.pdf.
___________________________. 2003. Department Memorandum 160 s 2003,“Analysis of the Human Rights Awareness level of Classroom Teachers andWorkshop on Designing Teacher Training Packages on Human Rights Education(hre).” Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/memo/2003/
DM_s2003_160.pdf.
___________________________. 2004. Department Memorandum 16 s 2004,“Training of Trainors and Teachers on Human Rights Education.” Retrieved
from www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/memo/2004/DM_s2004_016.pdf.
___________________________. 2004. Department Memorandum 130 s 2004,“Guidelines on the Conduct of the In-Service Training of Teachers (inset) on
Human Rights Education (hre).” Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/memo/2004/DM_s2004_130.pdf.
___________________________. 2004. Department Order 42 s 2004, “Permit toOperate Primary Schools for Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Communities.”
Retrievedfromwww.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/order/2004/DO_
s2004_042.pdf.
___________________________. 2006. Department Memorandum 297 s 2006,“Prohibition Against Acts Constituting Violations of R.A. 7610 Otherwise
Known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation andDiscrimination Act.” Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/
memo/2006/DM_s2006_297.pdf.
___________________________. 2008.
Philippine Education For All 2015:
Implementation and Challenges. Retrieved from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.
org/upload/Philippines/Philippines_EFA_MDA.pdf.
___________________________. 2008. Department Order 16 s 2008, “Coordinating
Mechanisms for Implementing the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda(besra).” Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/order/2008/
DO_s2008_016.pdf.
___________________________. 2009. Department Memorandum 515 s 2009, “First
National Educators’ Congress on Human Rights Education.” Retrieved fromwww.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/memo/2009/DM_s2009_515.pdf.
___________________________. 2010. Department Order 23 s 2010, “Adoption of
the besra Implementation and Accountability Plan, 2010-2012: A Blueprint forTransforming the Basic Education Sub-sector.” Retrieved from www.deped.gov.
ph/sites/default/iles/order/2010/DO%20No.%2023%2C%20s.%202010.pdf.
___________________________. 2010. Department Order 101 s 2010, “heAlternative Learning System (als) Curriculum for Indigenous Peoples (IP)
Education.” Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/order/2010/
DO%20No.%20101%20s.%202010.pdf.
___________________________. 2011. Department Order 62 s 2011, “Adoption of
the National Indigenous Peoples Education Policy Framework.” Retrieved from

Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

159

www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/order/2011/DO%20No.%2062%2C%20
s.%202011.pdf.
___________________________. 2011. Department Order 103 s 2011, “Creation of the
Indigenous Peoples Education Oice (IPsEO)”. Retrieved from www.deped.gov.
ph/sites/default/iles/order/2011/DO_s2011_103.pdf.
___________________________. 2014. Historical Perspective of the Philippine
Education System. Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph/about/history.
___________________________. 2014. Department Order 21 s 2014, “Guidelines on
the Recognition of Private Learning Institutions Serving Indigenous Peoples
Learners.” Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/order/2014/
DO_s 2014_021.pdf.
___________________________. 2014. Department Order 51 s 2014, “Guidelines
on the Conduct of Activities and the Use of Materials Involving Aspects ofIndigenous Peoples Culture.” Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/
iles/order/2014/DO_s2014_51.pdf.
___________________________. 2015. Department Order 7 s 2015, “Hiring Guidelines
for Teacher I Positions Efective School Year (SY) 2015-2016.” Retrieved fromwww.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/order/2015/DO_s2015_07.pdf.
Episcopal Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 2008. “Indigenous Peoples
Education: From Alienation to Rootedness.” Human Rights Education in Asian
Schools, Vol. 8. Retrieved from www.hurights.or.jp/archives/pdf/asia-s-ed/
v11/13Indigenous%20Peoples%20Education%20-%20Philippines.pdf.
Millennium Project. 2006. Millennium Development Goals. Retrieved from www.
unmillenniumproject.org/goals/index.htm.
he 1987 Philippine Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
OicialGazette.
Retrieved
fromwww.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/.
United Nations. 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration, United Nations
General Assembly, A/RES/55/2, 18 September 2000.. Retrieved from www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/ares552e.pdf.
___________________________. 2008. United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples. Retrieved from www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpii/documents/
drips_en.pdf.
Unesco. 2000. he Dakar Framework. pages 8, 58, and 59. Retrieved from http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf.
___________________________. �000. Asia-Paciic Regional Framework for Action:
Education for All. Retrieved from www.hurights.or.jp/pub/hreas/3/20guiding_principles.pdf.

Endnotes
1. he Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8371) or ipra
has the following deinition of indigenous peoples:

160

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I Ch) Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples - refer to a group ofpeople or homogenous societies identiied by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded
and deined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or
who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization,
non-indigenous religions and culture, became historically diferentiated from the
majority of Filipinos. Iccs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded asindigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited thecountry, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of nonindigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries,
who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may
have resettled outside their ancestral domains;(Section 3. Deinition of Terms) See http://www.gov.ph/1997/10/29/
republic-act-no-8371/.
2. he full text of DO 62 is available at www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/iles/
order/2011/DO%20No.%2062%2C%20s.%202011.pdf
3. his list was compiled by the author based on the statements of indigenous
leaders in many forums held through the years.
4. Ipra deines ancestral domains as follows:a) Ancestral Domains - Subject to Section 56 hereof, refer to all areas generally
belonging to iccs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural
resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by iccs/
IPs, themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time
immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government
projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private
individuals, corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, socialand cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral land, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable orotherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineraland other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied
by iccs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence andtraditional activities, particularly the home ranges of iccs/IPs who are still nomadic
and/or shifting cultivators;(Section 3. Deinition of Terms)
5. Ironically, the resulting global education roadmap of the 2015 World
Education Forum entitled “Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all” (Incheon Declaration) does not mention
ethnic minorities or indigenous peoples, though it considers “cultural, linguistic andethnic diversity.” See https://en.unesco.org/world-education-forum-2015/incheondeclaration, for the full text of the Incheon Declaration.
6. For the full text of the Department Order visit www.deped.gov.ph/orders/
do-23-s-2010.

Actualizing the Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Education

161

7. Armin Luis Castro, FSC, Adopting the National Indigenous Peoples (IP)
Education Policy Framework, DepEd Order 62, s. 2011, 8 August 2011.
8. Ibid.
9. Presentation by Pastor Delbert Rice in the “Consultative Workshop on
the Formulation of an IP Education Curriculum Framework,” Los Baños, Laguna,Philippines, 11-15 March 2013.
10. Presentation by Sr. Aristea Bautista and Catherine Sanchez-Escalona in
the “Consultative Workshop on the Formulation of an IP Education Curriculum
Framework,” Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines, 11-15 March 2013.
11. Interview of Teresita J. Bunglay, Education Program Coordinator, Mangyan
Mission, 4 June 2015.