06/08/2026
QUEZON CITY — A non-profit research organization advancing the land and environmental rights of Indigenous peoples and upland rural poor communities warned that changes to the new rules on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) may affect how Indigenous communities decide on projects in ancestral domains.
Nancy Alaan Catamco, chairperson of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, announced on May 1 that the Commission en Banc had approved the updated FPIC guidelines. The agency has been trying to finalize the amendments since May 2024, following a national consultation held in Quezon City.
The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) noted at least 14 concerns in the draft 2026 FPIC Guidelines, reminding the public that the new rule should not be implemented until it is published in the Official Gazette. The agency has yet to make the document public.
FPIC is a cornerstone in the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, protected under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the country’s 1997 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act. It requires project proponents to consult Indigenous peoples before any project affects their land or resources.
Section 3(g) of IPRA defines FPIC as “the consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs to be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and coercion.”
In an explainer, LRC said proposed changes could shorten the FPIC process and limit the participation of Indigenous customary governance, based on its review of the last official draft. Beyond the consent process, the center also flagged provisions that it said could weaken legal safeguards for ancestral domains and limit remedies for affected communities.
Community participation concerns
The center said the 2026 draft divides projects into four categories with different consent requirements. It said the classification decision, made administratively by the NCIP Regional Director, would determine the extent of community participation.
The center also said the draft reduces the role of community assemblies. It said the 2012 FPIC Guidelines required two assemblies, while the 2026 draft does not set a minimum number of assemblies.
The draft also shortens timelines, according to the briefer. It said consensus-building would be limited to thirty working days for Category A and seven working days for Category B. It said negotiations for the Memorandum of Agreement would be limited to ten working days for Category A and two working days for Category B.
The center identified other risks, including the removal of a categorical policy declaration requiring FPIC for concessions, licenses, permits, leases, or production-sharing agreements affecting ancestral domains.
Safeguards and accountability issues
LRC cited a new ground for issuing a Certificate of Non-Overlap based on property or vested rights recognized under Section 56 of IPRA. The center said this could allow a CNO based on a property claim without determining whether the area overlaps with an ancestral domain.
The briefer said the 2026 draft does not retain the 2012 protection excluding sacred grounds, burial sites, identified cultural and heritage sites, and areas identified in the Ancestral Domains Sustainable Development and Protection Plan from project activity.
LRC also raised concerns over provisions that allow the project applicant to prepare the Work and Financial Plan and to shoulder logistical expenses, including venue arrangements, transportation, materials, and documentation infrastructure. The briefer said the draft relies on documentation and NCIP confirmation, with the FPIC Report prepared by the applicant serving as the basis for issuing a Certification Precondition.
Other risks, the center said, include allowing complaints to proceed separately without automatically suspending the FPIC process, removing the requirement for independent experts, allowing consent by default if NCIP fails to act within thirty working days, barring lower courts from issuing restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, allowing permit extensions without full FPIC, and restricting customary law to disputes solely among members of the same ICCs/IPs.
Call for rejection
In an online petition launched in March, indigenous peoples, advocates, environmental and human rights defenders, communities, organizations, and allies rejected the draft, particularly the one presented in 2025.
“We oppose the proposed revisions to the FPIC Guidelines because they distort the FPIC from a foundational right, process, and safeguard of self-determination into a bureaucratic mechanism designed to facilitate corporate and state interests,” the signatories said.
The signatories urged the NCIP to conduct genuine consultations and adopt a rights-based FPIC framework that recognizes customary law, restores the role of elders and traditional leaders, requires environmental and social impact assessments, and maintains the revocability of consent. # nordis.net
Northern Dispatch is an online, alternative media outfit reporting events and issues from the people’s perspective in Northern Luzon.
ADDRESS: 173 T. Bugallon St., East Modern Site, Aurora Hill, Baguio City
