Councilors seek clarification on IP representation

THE CITY Council will clarify whether there is still a need for an Indigenous Peoples (IP) sectoral representative to the body considering that half of the present composition of the body belongs to indigenous groups.

In Resolution No. 222 authored by Councilor Isabelo Cosalan Jr., the body adopted the council committee on education, culture and historical research’s recommendation to seek “clarification or opinion on whether the IP mandatory representative in the council be deemed satisfied with the election or membership of IPs in the council.”

Seven of the 14 members of the body belong to indigenous tribes in the Cordilleras.

In the resolution, the body nevertheless requested the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples Cordillera Administrative Region (NCIP-CAR) to ascertain the threshold of IP population in the city to determine the possibility of having an IP sectoral representative in the City Council.

The body said it is the NCIP’s function in coordination with the Dept. of Interior and Local Government (DILG) “to determine and certify the minimum IP threshold required for the IPs to be entitled to a sectoral representative in the city council” in line with the DILG-NCIP Joint Circular No. 001 series of 2011which provides the guidelines for the determination of the minimum threshold for IP and Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICC) population in a local government unit to allow the mandatory representation in the local councils.

The representation of the IP is mandated under the implementing rules of the Local Government Code of 1991.

The committee on education noted that there is no data on IP/ICC population in the city and the only available data on ethnicity is household population by mother tongue for 2000 and 2007.

“Without the IP/ICC population, the minimum number to be met for an IP mandatory representative in the council may not be computed,” the committee noted.

“While the threshold can also be computed on the basis of land area occupied by IP/ICC, data on IP/ICC landholding cannot also be obtained as would provide basis for the determination of minimum five percent of the total land area of the LGU for a representative in the council.”

The committee further observed that there are various IPs in the city and the “computation of the threshold may not be proper to be based on the aggregate IPs population because of diverse culture.” (Aileen Refuerzo)