Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 – as well as in numerous administrative guidelines. The current FPIC process is implemented through an Administrative Order that has penal provisions and the force of law. FPIC is required for all externally introduced activities, including commercial initiatives, development projects, researchers, surveys, meetings, and in some instances, even taking photographs of indigenous peoples. How has it been implemented? Most, if not all development activities, i.e. mining, logging, pearl farms, that have been subjected to FPIC have been able to proceed. However, there have been some successes in using FPIC for communities to regulate bioprospecting. For example, Datu Vic Saway filed a case versus the National Museum concerning the illegal gathering of floral samples in Mt. Kitanglad. Similarly, some communities that refused to go through the FPIC process have been successful in rejecting the entry of most development activities. The Aetas of Pastolan, Zambales, denied the construction of a gold course by continuously saying no and refusing to engage the government. Pitfalls of the FPIC n FPIC has become an instrument used by the government to deny the right of self-determination of indigenous communities. n Junk science and other deceitful means have been used to derail genuine FPIC. For example, drawing a line separating the boundary of a mining claim versus an ancestral domain claim excludes the indigenous community from demanding an FPIC. Or the use of deceitful information so an IP community would allow the entry of a mining corporation. n FPIC has divided communities and damaged people’s cultural ties by using non-traditional processes, such as voting for a simple majority in lieu of consensusbuilding. n FPIC has exerted extreme stress on communities, who are forced to make hasty decisions within a very short period of time, hindering them from the benefit of sustained and comprehensive consultations to gain information and gather consensus. n The FPIC process has shown its vulnerability to hijacking by big businesses wanting a favorable decision. For example, the FPIC’s implementing rules and regulations have been reviewed and amended at least twice upon the insistence of the mining industry, which feel that securing FPIC takes too long for a company. Consequently, the FPIC timeframe has been shortened from 120 days to 90 days. n Extreme poverty, exacerbated by the lack of government resources, has made communities vulnerable, affecting their resolve in conducting genuine FPIC. To illustrate, mining companies shoulder the the costs for the filing of ancestral domain claims, as well as logistical requirements for an FPIC. Schools, water systems, and livelihood support have been doled out to secure favorable decisions in the FPIC process. Lok Niti 115