·--~-..-=cd=~===~~·=·=·~~-~~·~~~~--->·.·~·" -~~·~~~ guaranteed therein, would be liable to said person for damages. Any violation of a provision of the framework act, whether committed by public or private actors, would similarly give rise to liability for damages. It is then declared a ministerial duty on the part of the government to ensure the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed in the framework act, and to perform the duties embodied in it. Appropriate cases may be filed before the courts to compel compliance with the provisions of the act. These cases will be without prejudice to liability for damages, as well as administrative liability that may be incurred. There are other bills that are pending in Congress, such as the AVA Bill on the regulation of agribusiness venture agreements, as have been discussed earlier. Significantly, the current view in Congress is still to encourage the participation of the private sector in order to enhance the development and productivity of awarded lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The bill limits its coverage to awarded lands distributed under agrarian reform laws, hence there seems to be no efforts yet on legislative regulation for AVAs involving such lands under legal regimes other than the CARP. It would put under the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) the primary and exclusive jurisdiction to approve or revoke AVAs, while the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) would have jurisdiction over disputes involving interpretation and enforcement of AVAs' specific provisions. There is no law at the moment that specifically authorizes the PARC to approve or revoke AVAs. Administrative orders serve as legal bases for DAR, DARAB, and PARC to do so, such as provided in DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2016. Gaps in the regulatory framework, both pertaining to legal and policy domains, of Philippine agribusiness is primarily caused by the principle of autonomy in contract law, which provides that the parties have wide latitude to agree on any stipulations to include in their contract. With this, the continuing vulnerability and marginalization of farmers, whether IPs or non-IPs, demands that the state must render more effective protection of their rights. The state must clearly provide rules when the terms and conditions in contracts, such as in AVAs, contravene law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. There is also House Bill No. 115, with the short title "Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Conserved Areas and Territories (ICCA) Act of 2016, 84 which is said to implement the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and that aims to fully realize cultural rights of the indigenous peoples. The bill provides that it shall be the policy of the state to recognize, promote and support the initiatives of local communities in establishing and maintaining ICCAs in key biodiversity areas (KBAs) within forestlands. It requires a system of recognition, registration, protection and promotion of covered lands, providing penalties to any act of desecration for such areas. The bill clarifies the mandates of the different government agencies, such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, among others, in the implementation of the bill's objectives. One of the motivations to pursue the ICCA Bill is the international recognition of Ifugao's muyong, viewed from different perspectives, either as a forest conservation strategy, a watershed rehabilitation technique, a farming system or an assisted natural regeneration (ANR) strategy. 85 Through the muyong system, the Ifugaos have aptly shown that ANR can be used effectively to transform woodlots into multiple-use centers without disturbing the pristine condition of the natural forest. It is expected that discrimination against indigenous knowledge of preserving natural resources would be diminished. The legislative bills mentioned above certainly indicate that there are gaps in the legal and policy framework such that their passage are being sought. Significantly, the aforesaid bills provide penalties that may be imposed upon the officers of the corporation, partnership, association, or juridical entity responsible for said violation, except in the case of the Zero Hunger Bill and the AVA Bill, which have not yet made such explicit penal provision in the proposed texts as reviewed herein. Stated otherwise, the bills have the potential to serve as mechanisms by which human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled, even by businesses. It is proper to recall that the causes of discrimination, marginalization and vulnerability of farmers and other persons working in rural areas are the following: 86 84 Text of the bill is found via http://www.congress.gov.ph!legisdocs/basic 17/HBOOllS.pdf (accessed Oct. 28, 2016) 85 Butic, M. & Ngidlo, R. (2003) Muyong forest of Ifugao: Assisted natural regeneration in traditional forest management http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/AD466E/ad466e06.htm (accessed October 28, 2016) 86 Human Rights Council Advisory Committee (January 18, 2012) Final study on the advancement of the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas. A/HRC/AC/8/6 41