In 1909, in the case of Cariño vs. Insular Government,[1] the court has recognized long occupancy of land by an Indigenous member of the cultural communities as one of private ownership (which, in legal concept, is termed "native title").

11 of 1970, all forest concessions were made subject to the private rights of cultural minorities within the area as evidenced by their occupation existing at the time a license is issued by the government.

The Revised Forestry Code of 1975 (Presidential Decree 705 under President Marcos) defines this "private right" of as "places of abode and worship, burial grounds and old clearings.

Prior to this, a Presidential Decree was issued in 1974, "declaring all agricultural lands occupied and cultivated by members of the national Cultural Communities since 1964 as alienable and disposable, except the islands of Panay and Negros and the provinces of Abra, Quezon, Benguet and Camarines which became effective on March 11, 1984.

[5][6] The decrees that have been passed fail to encompass all the needs of the indigenous people primarily because of failure in implementation and sole focus on the land and domains only.

[3] Despite difficult hurdles and amendments enacted in the Congress that nearly brought the movement to its death, the House of Representatives finally approved the bill late in September 1997.

Whereas, the Filipino majority learned very well the ways of the colonial masters by adapting to their laws and practices, the minority (IPs), consciously asserted the integrity of their ancestral territories, pre-Hispanic native culture and justice systems which are viewed as diametrically opposed to the majority's world view, but which the IPRA law attempts to recognize and interface with the national legal system.

The 1997 IPRA Law defines ancestral domains as "areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present even when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals or corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare.

It shall include forests, pastures, residential, agricultural and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable otherwise, hunting grounds, burial rounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs and IPs who are still nomadic and or shifting cultivators.

[3] Ancestral lands, as stated in the law, refer to "lands occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present even when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects, and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.

ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains; The independent ICCs/IPs refers to the Indigenous group who are not dependent on any civil government agencies, and not duly registered to the NCIP but duly recognized by law, who develop their own self-governance, political system and institution, economy and, social and cultural well-being.

One of the independent standing in the Philippines is KKK-A (Kinatas-ang Kahugpongan sa Kadatuan Alimaong) Higaonon Sugboanon they continue the legacy with spirit of Lapu-lapu and Leon Kilat.

Presently the ruler of the Higaonon sugboanon Independent Tribe Ha Datu Bontito Leon Kilat and Datu Makaatol Tugas in all islands in the Philippines and interfaced the government to enforced the law of the ICC's/IP's, reinforced the legal issue under customary law and freedom to remain in their inhabited land as stipulated in the Republic Act 8371 together with treaties agreements and human rights.

— The State shall recognize and respect the role of independent ICCs/IPs organizations to enable the ICCs/IPs to pursue and protect their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.

— No inferior court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the NCIP or any of its duly authorized or designated offices in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains.

The next problem encountered was that the ancestral domain rights' legal characterisation as "private but communal" differentiated from the Philippines' civil law's idea of co-ownership of real property.

This meant that areas in ancestral domains is shared by the members of the community, but that does not mean that they are considered as co-owners of the said property according to the New Civil Code (2).

A non-member of ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years: provided, that a formal and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow such operation: provided, finally, that the NCIP may exercise visitorial powers and take appropriate action to safeguard the rights of ICCs/IPs under the same contract (1).is also viewed as problematic (2) because being given the right to be prioretised in terms of development, exploitation, extraction, or harvesting of natural resources belonging in ancestral domains does not necessarily mean that an IP member is given the right of ownership of the said natural resources (3).

Instead of protecting the rights of the IPs, Section 57 strengthens argument that all natural resources found in ancestral domains belong to the State (3).

The law reemphasizes that all ICC/IPs are legally entitled to fundamental universal human rights and that the State should actively create an inclusive environment with this in mind.

The State is then called to acknowledge the ICCs/IPs position as a vulnerable group that have been historically excluded from socio-economic opportunities and to guarantee that the IPs enjoy equal protection by the law.

This being said, areas under Ancestral Domains and members of indigenous tribes require special regulation beyond that of the convention as legally recognized IPs/ICCs are given the freedom to govern their territories by their own laws.

In accordance to the customary laws of each tribe, the government must provide mechanisms that facilitate deeper understanding of indigenous culture for women and youth while their human dignity.

The law ensures the full realization of women's and youth rights but requires all mechanisms and programs to be culturally sensitive and relevant to the ICCs/IPs needs.

[10] Attempts to implement these rights regarding cultural integrity are most recently captured by the celebration of National Indigenous People's Month on October to November 2014.

It was held in three different venues, from Oct 22 to 23 at the Baguio Convention Center in Baguio City in Luzon in expected attendees were from groups: Gaddang, Isinay, Tinggian, Itneg, Ibanag, Yogad, Itawit, Malaweg, Kasiguran, Ivatan, Itbayat, Bugkalot, Isnag, Kalinga, Ifugao, Ibaloy, Kankanaey, Balangao, Bontok, Applai, Ilocano, Bolinao, Pangasinan, Tagalog, Sambal, Pampangan, Ayta, Agta, Mangyan, Palawani, Molbog, Jama Mapun, Tagbanua, Pala'wan, Agutaynen, Bicolano, Batak and Cuyunon; from Nov 6 to 7 in Zamboanga City in Mindanao aimed to highlight the groups: Yakan, Subanen, Manobo, Higaonon, Bagobo, Mandaya, Mansaka, B'laan, Sangir, Ata Manobo, T'boli, Teduray, Arumanen, Mamanwa, Maranao, Magindanao, Iranun and Tausug and from Nov 10 to 11 in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental in Visayas for the groups: Ati, Panay Bukidnon, Waray, Abaknon, Hiligaynon and Cebuano.

The article on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is recognized in the international sphere and was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 61st session at UN Headquarters in New York City on September 13, 2007.

Primarily, the inconsistencies lie in how Philippine Law prohibited them from following their customs and traditions that is centered around the indigenous people's governance of their land.

For instance, they complained that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prohibits some IP farmers to hunt animals and cultivate lands (i.e. the 53,262-hectare part of Mt.

Malindang) covered by National Integrated Protected Areas (NIPA) program; thereby, cutting off their primary source of income and food for their family.