‘Sino garud ti us-usto?’: NCIP-CAR asks who can legally represent iBalatocs after claims proposed mining deal was not consulted with the wider community

Balatoc, Pasil, Kalinga – The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples–Cordillera (NCIP-CAR) has raised questions over who legally represents the Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC) of Barangay Balatoc after residents learned of an alleged mining agreement between the Balatoc Kalinga Tribal Incorporation (BKTI) and FCF Minerals Corporation, claiming that the wider community had neither been informed nor consulted.

The issue was raised during a community meeting held on June 25 at the Kalipi Hall within the Batong Buhay tenement. Community elders, leaders, local officials, and representatives from NCIP-CAR, the Philippine Mining Development Corporation (PMDC), FCF Minerals Corporation, BKTI, the Faratok Indigenous Tribal Organization (FITO), and other stakeholders gathered to clarify the status of the reported agreement and discuss concerns surrounding Indigenous representation and community consent.

What to know about the issue

Years of controversy surrounding the Batong Buhay mining project in Barangay Balatoc, Pasil, have continued to shape discussions within the Indigenous community, with new issues emerging.

The latest controversy stems from the proposed development of the Batong Buhay mining project, a 440-hectare copper-gold prospect located in Barangay Balatoc.

The Batong Buhay area has long been considered one of the Philippines' major undeveloped copper-gold prospects since it was first discovered in 1934 and further explored in 1969.

On June 15, 2026, United Kingdom-based Metals Exploration PLC announced that it had secured agreements with FCF Minerals Corporation, the PMDC, and the BKTI to explore and develop the project, with exploration activities expected to begin ahead of a planned drilling program in the second half of 2026.

Metals Exploration also operates the Runruno Gold Mine in Nueva Vizcaya through its Philippine subsidiary, FCF Minerals Corporation.

However, the announcement alarmed many iFaratok, who said they had no prior knowledge of any agreement despite the project's direct impact on their ancestral domain.

The discussion and the two IPOs

Former Pasil Mayor Chao-ig Malannag questioned why the wider community only learned of the reported agreement after the company's public announcement, stressing that no community consultation had been conducted regarding the proposed arrangement.

Malannag also argued during an interview that FITO, not BKTI, should represent the Indigenous community, saying FITO was chosen through a community assembly and later recognized by the NCIP.

"... ti nakaala ti majority nga votes ket FITO not BKTI babaen ti community assembly sometime in 2024. Now adda ti maysa nga company, the FCF, naki-MOA ti BKTI—dapat ti naki-MOA'an na ket diay FITO, ta isu met ti nakala ti votes ken ti in-recognize ti NCIP," he said.

BKTI, meanwhile, is the oldest Indigenous Peoples Organization (IPO) in the community. It was registered in 1992 through a consensus decision of the tribe. For more than three decades, the organization has been headed by its current president, Victor Gumisa.

It was also the organization identified in the Certification Precondition (CP) and the Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) executed in 2006 involving the PMDC. Because of these existing legal documents, PMDC said it could not simply replace BKTI as the recognized party without following the proper government procedures.

However, some residents and community leaders argued that BKTI no longer reflects the will of the Indigenous community. They said FITO was organized through a community assembly in 2024 to unify the previously divided BKTI factions and was elected by majority vote.

According to Malannag, FITO has already been recognized by the NCIP at the local level and should therefore represent the community in any future negotiations.

Clarification on the proposed MOA

Meanwhile, NCIP-CAR Acting Regional Director Atty. Wilson Calangeg clarified that no final Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Joint Operational Agreement (JOA) has been signed.

He explained that the document being discussed is only a draft proposal intended to be presented to the community for review and comments before any agreement can be finalized.

"Daytoy nga MOA ket draft, haan pay nga naramid tapnu maikkan kami ti chance nga mang-assist kanyayo. Dakami from region, ti inmayan dagitoy representative ti FCF nga naki-coordinate, last week ket kunada nga adda ti kayat da nga ipakita ti Balatoc IPs. So siyempre, dakami from the NCIP, concern mi dayta kasi dakami—babaen ti gobyerno, ti mang-assist kanyayo," he said.

The meeting also exposed another major issue—the uncertainty over who legally represents the ICC of Balatoc.

NCIP-CAR Atty. Bryan Donggayao noted that three IPOs currently exist in the community: BKTI 1, BKTI 2, and FITO. However, none presently holds the status of the sole representative authorized to act on behalf of all iBalatocs.

NCIP-CAR Atty. Geoffrey Calderon further explained that BKTI's previous registration had already lapsed, while FITO's registration remains pending.

"...derechaan, awan pay ti marespeto nga IPO yo. Umuna, BKTI 1 naglapse ti registration dan. Every 2 years lang ti registration, so in effect, awan ti BKTI. FITO, pending paylang ti FITO--awan pay ti approval ti registration da. In effect, awan pay ti IPO yo. So dayta, part of prudence ket kunak iyumili tayo dayta balak da nga MOA," he said.

This prompted Calangeg to raise a fundamental question regarding community representation:

"...ti ibagbaga mi ket adda ti uncertainty nu you are being represented by different organization iti maymaysa lang nga banag. Asinno ngay garud ti us-usto? Nu kasta ti mangmangyare, sino garud ti legal nga mangi-represent kanyayo? Diyay ti number one nga ipo-point out mi."

The NCIP-CAR emphasized that any future agreement affecting the ancestral domain should involve the entire Indigenous Cultural Community rather than a single organization.

While the proposed MOA remains under review and the dialogue is set to continue on another date, residents maintained that no agreement should move forward without full consultation, transparency, and the free, prior, and informed participation of all iBalatocs, underscoring that the future of the Batong Buhay project should ultimately be decided by the community itself.