Domain in perpetuity The ancestral waters of the Tagbanwa in Coron physically overlaps with the municipal waters of the LGU of Coron. Hence, issues and conflict in jurisdiction as well as authority to zone the ancestral waters vis-àvis the municipal waters and regulate activities arise. For instance, the Local Government Code provides the mandate to the LGU to regulate activities in the municipal waters and enforce fishery laws.8 On the other hand, RA 8371 (IPRA) empowers the Indigenous Community to formulate an Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP). In the ADSDPP, they can assert the right to control, manage, develop, protect, conserve, and sustainably use: a) land, air, water and minerals; b) plants, animals and other organisms; c) collecting, fishing and hunting grounds; d) sacred sites; and, e) other areas of economic, ceremonial and aesthetic value in accordance with their indigenous knowledge systems and practices (IKSPs) and customary laws and traditions.9 Issues on Resource Use and Governance The Local Government Code and the Fisheries Code10 gives the LGU the authority to issue resource-use permits and collect fees and other levies. The Fisheries Code also calls for the creation of local multisectoral fishery councils called Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMCs), which shall act as a consultative body to the LGU in the determination of fees and licenses, as well as partners in the enforcement of laws. Demarcated areas may also be set aside by the LGU for the use of fisherfolk organizations or their Fishery Cooperatives. This mandate directly goes against the IPRA where ICCs/IPs have been vested with rights of ownership over lands, waters (both inland and offshore), and natural resources and all improvements made by them at any time within the ancestral domains/lands. These rights shall include, but not limited to, the right over the fruits, the right to possess, the right to use, right to consume, right to exclude and right to recover ownership.11 Overall, the Fisheries Code of 1998 is an expression of a more traditional, bygone view of resource exploitation, that is, it envisions the development of the fisheries and aquatic resources sector as an industry through a system of permits, licenses and tax breaks as incentives. The Code takes tentative steps in the protection of marine resources, as far as it adopts provisions from existing environmental laws to feature ecological concepts and environmental conservation. It is very clear in penalizing the clearing of mangroves to make way for fish pens. Yet, the Code is virtually silent on ancestral waters, the role of indigenous peoples in the governance of aquatic areas and the recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous fisherfolk. The FARMC while it allows local participation in the management of aquatic resources, remains a consultative body to the LGU (which shall issue permits and collect fees), and is clearly not a governing management board. The Code vaguely allows for a “private sector” representative for the National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (NFARMC) separate from fisherfolk organizations, which is an unusual view given that small fisherfolk are part of the private sector. Moreover, it does not provide ample room to accommodate the peculiar needs and conditions of indigenous peoples who assert claims of ownership over the coastal and aquatic areas, but merely lumps them together with other small-fisher folks. 15