domestically in the nation, and highlight the need for justice for this underserved group. Just as the Spanish and then Americans colonized the country, the Philippines’ has stifled and marginalized indigenous peoples with respect to its progress and development. Padmapani L. Perez and the BUKLURAN-The Philippine ICCA Consortium (2018) offer an indigenous critique of Philippine environmental policy. As the details of the Indigenous Communities’ Conserved Areas and Territories (ICCA) bill are being negotiated today in Congress, Perez reviews the consultations, policy dialogues, roundtable discussions and documents related to the ICCA Bill and centers the voice of indigenous participants to challenge state-managed biodiversity conservation. Through this study, Perez (2018) underscores the experience of indigenous leaders with state-managed biodiversity conservation under the National Integrated Protected Areas Systems of 1992 (NIPAS, or RA 7586) and their frustrations with the implementation of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA, or RA 8371), sharing stories of how market-driven land conversion to commercial farming is blamed on deforestation caused by indigenous people in protected areas. The latter being rightfully challenged by indigenous leaders, asserting the fact that “they themselves are the reason the forest is still there” (Perez & with BUKLURAN-The Philippine ICCA Consortium, 2018). Other experiences show how enclosure and regulation under the conservation regime also limit information flows, creating the environment where there is little awareness that the problem may be systematic, or shared worldwide (Perez & with BUKLURAN-The Philippine ICCA Consortium, 2018). Their thoughtful
and thorough study that centers and uplifts indigenous perspectives in the ICCA Bill negotiations provides a shift from valorization and demystification of indigenous relationships with nature, and focuses on critique as a meaningful mode of indigenous participation in policy-making. This shift to seeing indigenous peoples and host communities as experts may be key to future implementation.
ENERGY POLICY AND EXTERNAL AID DURING THE MARCOS REGIME Because the foundation of energy policy began during the Marcos regime, I argue that this may be why today, large infrastructure projects promoted by current administrations have a deeply rooted negative connotation. The Martial Law era marked a dark time in Philippine history, alongside the prominence of free-market technocracy that had a stronghold over economic decision-making (Tadem, 2013). Though scholars argue that Marcos’ economic policies would have likely passed during this time, it was their view that subjecting his policies to time-consuming debates in Philippine Congress and thus, martial law giving him power to implement immediately was problematic and in direct contradiction of the democratic processes learned from America. Martial law allows the executive, legislative, and judicial powers to be under full control of the President, and more problematically removes the right for any form of protest; furthering their view that this “facade of political stability” would attract multinational corporate investment (Tadem, 2013).
