The proposed ₱400-million, five-star hotel in Proper Paoay, Atok has understandably generated optimism. It promises jobs, tourism, and economic opportunities that could benefit the municipality for years to come. Every community welcomes investments that create progress.
But progress should never come at the expense of transparency.
Recent statements by Atok Municipal Councilor Edward Haight have helped clarify several aspects of the proposal. According to the councilor, the property was sold by a local family to a corporation based in Batangas about a year ago, and the corporation later presented plans to develop the site into a hotel. He also disclosed that the proposal has already been discussed with the Municipal Planning and Development Office, the Office of the Mayor, and the Sangguniang Bayan. More importantly, the council has urged the proponents to coordinate with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and to comply with the required public consultation and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) process.
These developments are encouraging. They show that the local government recognizes the need to follow legal procedures rather than simply approving the project.
Yet the clarification also raises questions that deserve equally clear answers.
Published records show that Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) No. CAR-ATO-1204-026 covers 20,017.65 hectares, while the Philippine Statistics Authority places Atok’s total land area at 21,499 hectares. Although the figures differ by about 1,481 hectares, NCIP records indicate that the CADT encompasses all eight barangays of Atok. If the proposed hotel site in Proper Paoay falls within the CADT, then compliance with the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act is not simply a procedural requirement. It is a recognition of the rights attached to the ancestral domain.
A Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title is not an ordinary land title. It recognizes that ancestral domains belong collectively to Indigenous Cultural Communities and are held for present and future generations. Development is not prohibited, but it should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the community’s Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) and with the safeguards established under IPRA.
The council’s recommendation that the proponents undergo the appropriate FPIC process is therefore a welcome step. The planned consultations with the Atok Tourism Association, residents, stakeholders, and the NCIP provide an opportunity for meaningful public participation before any final decisions are made.
Still, one important issue remains unresolved.
Councilor Haight explained that the land was sold by a local family to a corporation based in Batangas. That statement inevitably invites a broader discussion.
If the property forms part of a titled ancestral domain, what is the legal status of the land? Was it private land excluded from the CADT, or land that may legally be transferred under existing laws? If it lies within the CADT, what legal mechanism governs the transaction? These are legitimate questions that deserve clarification from the proper authorities, not speculation from the public.
The ownership structure of the proposed hotel also remains unclear. Who is the corporation behind the project? Will it own only the hotel building, or both the land and the improvements? If the project proceeds under a lease or another legal arrangement, what long-term benefits will accrue to the indigenous community and to the municipality? These questions matter because they determine whether the benefits of the investment will extend beyond construction and short-term employment.
The Sangguniang Bayan’s reported interest in exploring ordinances similar to those adopted in Sagada to strengthen the protection of ancestral domains is also worth serious consideration. Whether such measures are necessary is a matter for public discussion, but the proposal reflects a broader concern shared by many communities: how to encourage investment without weakening local control over ancestral lands.
This editorial is not an argument against development. Nor is it an accusation that any law has been violated. On the contrary, the statements made by the municipal council indicate that legal processes are being recognized and that consultations are being encouraged.
The public now awaits the next step: openness.
A project valued at ₱400 million should be accompanied by the same level of transparency. Identifying the project proponent, explaining the ownership arrangement, clarifying the legal status of the property, and making the consultation process visible to the public will only strengthen confidence in the project.
Economic progress and indigenous rights should never be viewed as competing interests. The best development projects are those that create prosperity while preserving the rights, identity, and long-term interests of the communities that call the land their ancestral home.
Before the first brick is laid, the public deserves those answers.
