MORE than ₱700 million in mining royalties flowed into an ancestral domain in Davao de Oro between 2021 and 2023, covering more than 108,000 hectares and ranking as the province’s largest ancestral domain by land area according to the Department of Agriculture-Mindanao Inclusive Agriculture Development Project (DA-MIADP). In neighboring Davao Oriental, millions more in royalties from nickel mining operations have likewise flowed into an 18,000-hectare Indigenous community, according to data obtained for this report, while research reports describe the area as spanning about 19,000 hectares and having hosted mining activities for more than two decades.
Across these two ancestral domains in southeastern Mindanao, the central question is no longer simply how much mining companies have paid. It is how the government agencies mandated to protect and promote the rights of Indigenous Peoples have adequately ensured that mining royalties are properly managed, accounted for, and used for their intended beneficiaries.
The disputes have placed mining royalties, Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOs), tribal leadership, and government oversight under increasing scrutiny. Community members and Indigenous leaders are demanding greater transparency over royalty funds, accountability for their management, and action on alleged violations linked to mining operations and the distribution of benefits.
The issue is particularly visible in Mati City, Davao Oriental, where Mandaya leaders from Barangays Macambol and Cabuaya are embroiled in a dispute over mining royalties, community development funds, Indigenous leadership, and authority over the ancestral domain. Similar concerns have emerged among the Mansaka Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) of Maco, Davao de Oro.
The Mansaka ICCs/IPs hold Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADTs) covering lands where a large mining company operates. Under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (Republic Act No. 8371) and applicable mining laws, they are entitled to royalties from the extraction of natural resources within their ancestral domain.
For years, these royalties have been received and administered through Sumpaw ng Inansabong Mansaka, Inc. (SIMI), with Madmi (Mandaya-Mansaka Ancestral Domain Management, Inc.) serving as its technical arm. However, the disagreement has moved beyond tribal meetings and competing claims of leadership, with demands for financial records, questions over the authority of the IPO managing community affairs, calls for government intervention, barricades at the mining area, and appeals to suspend further royalty releases until previous payments are properly accounted for.
For the communities involved, the dispute ultimately centers on who controls the resources generated from their ancestral lands, how those resources are spent, and whether those entrusted with managing them can account for every peso.
A VoxPop Davao investigation
This is VoxPop Davao’s special report, tracing the dispute from its first documented developments on July 22, 2026 through subsequent visits and community engagements, including meetings with Indigenous Peoples leaders and community members.
The reporting examined the competing claims surrounding royalty payments, Indigenous representation, community benefits, and mining-related concerns in two of the region’s major ancestral domains.
On August 18, VoxPop Davao returned to the affected community for a media conference at the Nuestra Señora de Guia Parish in Barangay Dawan, Mati City, where concerns surrounding the royalty dispute and the community’s demands for accountability were further raised.
The reporting continued on August 29, when Indigenous Peoples leaders and community representatives discussed the royalty issue and the continuing dispute during an IP conversation and leaders’ discussion in Davao City.
What emerges from the accounts, documents, and statements gathered during the reporting is a dispute that extends beyond the release of mining money.
It is a conflict over representation, authority, and accountability — and over whether millions of pesos generated from mining within ancestral lands are being managed in a manner that Indigenous communities can independently verify.
July 22: The royalty dispute becomes public
By July 22, the dispute over mining benefits in Macambol and Cabuaya had escalated into a public demand by Indigenous leaders for transparency in the management of royalty funds and clarification over which organization had the authority to receive and administer them.
On that day, hundreds of Indigenous Peoples gathered in the Mandaya ancestral domain and blocked officials of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples-Davao Region (NCIP-Davao) from entering the area for a scheduled consultation on the renewal of two Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSAs) involving two big mining companies.
The consultation was intended to discuss the renewal of MPSA No. 106-2004-XI (Amended) and MPSA No. 197-2004-XI (Amended).
Community members, however, insisted that discussions on the mining agreements should not proceed while questions surrounding the management of mining royalty funds remained unresolved.
Leaders representing several Mandaya clans, including the Mapinogos, Magtana, Valentin, Dianong and Lemente clans, raised concerns about the handling of mining-related benefits and called for greater transparency in the use of the funds. They also questioned the authority of the organization receiving or administering the royalties on behalf of the community.
The community further called for the lawful implementation of the Community Resource Development and Management Program (CRDMP) in accordance with the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP).
The July 22 protest was not presented by the leaders as opposition to mining itself. Rather, they questioned how the financial benefits generated from mining were being managed, distributed and accounted for, and whether the existing mechanisms were adequately protecting the interests of the Indigenous community.
Among the figures discussed was approximately ₱19 million in royalty funds.
The leaders sought records that would allow the community to trace the money from the mining company to the account designated to receive the royalties and, subsequently, to the withdrawals and expenditures made from the fund.
Their demand went beyond knowing the remaining balance. They wanted to determine how much was actually received after deductions, who had authority over the account, who approved the withdrawals, what projects or programs were funded, who benefited from them, and whether the expenditures complied with the agreements and community plans governing the use of the funds.
The leaders also questioned the proposed release of another royalty payment while the earlier funds remained under dispute.
Their position was that the previous royalty should first be fully accounted for before another payment was released.
Tribal leaders call for respect and recognition
One of the Indigenous leaders who raised the issue was Simplicio Mendoza Jr., 66, an elder of the Magtana clan who said he had been involved in ancestral-domain affairs since the 1990s.
For Mendoza, an Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative (IPMR), the dispute over royalty money was inseparable from a larger question concerning Indigenous governance.
He questioned what he considered to be the National Commission of Indigenous Peoples' (NCIP) role in matters that, in his view, should remain within the authority of the Indigenous community.
Mendoza said, “Ang NCIP office, naa sa ilahang mandato nga to protect pero unsay nahitabo karon, kami na noon ang gikuhaan og katungod. Amoa ni. Dili ni ilaha. Naa mi sariling pagdumala sa tribo (“The NCIP office has the mandate to protect [our rights], but what is happening now is that we are the ones being deprived of our rights. This is ours, not theirs. We have our own system of tribal governance).”
Meanwhile, Vidal Mapinogos Jr., 56, an Indigenous leader and member of the Lemente clan, also called for an examination of the financial records.
Mapinogos questioned the competing claims over Indigenous representation and said the records should establish how the royalty money was handled.
He said: “Kaming mga lehitimo sa IPS, ipakita namo sa ilaha kung asa ni nga kwarta (We, the legitimate IPs, will show them where this money is).”
The P24-million royalty
The controversy also centers on a royalty payment from a mining company in Mati City in 2024. Community leaders described the payment as approximately ₱24 million, with about ₱19 million remaining after taxes and other deductions for community purposes.
They later questioned their IPO president Eroll Aquino over the utilization of the funds, claiming that records presented during the dispute showed that only approximately ₱1.4 million remained.
The figures require careful reconciliation. A royalty payment can pass through several stages before the amount available for community use is determined. Deductions, taxes, administrative charges, or other authorized adjustments may affect the final amount transferred.
For that reason, the gross amount cited by community leaders cannot automatically be treated as the amount available for expenditure.
The relevant documents include the mining company's payment records, the royalty computation, proof of transfer, bank records, deductions, and the financial statements of the receiving organization.
Two royalty releases, different figures
During the second visit on August 14, it was reported and identified that the first royalty payment of ₱10,711,001.15 was released on November 12, 2024, covering earlier periods. A second payment of ₱19,193,630.18 was reportedly released on February 18, 2025, covering the 2024 royalty. The same report said the royalty for 2025, estimated at approximately ₱33 million, had not yet been released at the time of the report.
The figures differ from the rounded amounts discussed during the July 22 community engagement, when leaders referred to a ₱24-million payment, approximately ₱19 million after deductions, and another prospective payment of around ₱32 million.
The ₱1.4-milion balance
The reported ₱1.4-million remaining balance is one of the most consequential claims raised during the dispute. If the figure is accurate, it would mean that most of the money previously received had already been disbursed. But a low remaining balance is not, by itself, evidence of misuse. The critical issue is what happened to the money before the balance reached ₱1.4 million.
The SDMP question
The royalty dispute is also intertwined with concerns over the Social Development and Management Program, or SDMP, which is intended to support development programs in communities affected by mining operations.
Former Macambol barangay secretary Jayson Rey Repisada raised questions about the documentation of some SDMP-funded activities during his time in office.
Repisada said his concerns were not about the existence of mining itself but about whether the projects being reported were adequately documented and whether the reported expenditures corresponded with what was actually delivered to the community.
He said, “I grew up here in Macambol. I went to elementary and high school here, and I built my profession here. I became barangay secretary, but I was eventually removed. One of the reasons, I believe, was that I did not support kagawad Eroll.”
He added that he became more aware of the SDMP and royalty system while serving as barangay secretary.
“It was during his time as barangay kagawad that I learned there were already SDMP funds and royalties. I had heard about them before, but I did not fully understand that the SDMP was intended for community development.”
One of the issues he raised involved accomplishment reports. “As barangay secretary, one of the things I questioned was the accomplishment reports. When they asked the barangay to acknowledge an accomplishment report, sometimes what was presented was only a photograph.”
Repisada questioned whether a photograph was sufficient evidence that a project had actually been completed and that the reported amount had been properly spent.
“I would ask, ‘Are we really supposed to acknowledge an accomplishment report based only on a photograph? Does that photograph prove that the ₱5 million was actually used to implement the project?’ For me, that was the problem. It was not clear to the community.”
The water reservoir and livestock claims
Repisada cited a water-dispenser purchase as one example of what he considered questionable documentation.
“There was an instance when two water dispensers were presented, with a reported value of ₱45,000. I questioned it because, even if we checked the prices in Mati, one water dispenser would not normally cost ₱22,500,” he said.
The same documentary approach applies to Repisada's concerns about livestock distributed as livelihood assistance.
“They did give pigs. That is true. But the problem was sustainability. A pig worth around ₱2,500 cannot sustain a family if there is no continuing support for feed. After two or three days, if the recipient cannot afford the feed, the pig is eventually sold,” the former leader added.
Garden projects and accomplishment reports
Repisada also raised questions about the validation of community garden projects, alleging that some accomplishment photographs may not have accurately reflected the projects of the intended beneficiaries. He said there were instances in which a neighboring resident’s garden was allegedly used as photographic documentation when the designated recipient had not established one.
‘We are not anti-mining’
Repisada clarified that his concerns were not about ending mining operations in the area. He said he and others recognized the economic activity and development generated by mining and had previously gathered information from farmers, fishermen and other sectors to identify the community’s needs.
His concern, he said, was whether the programs and assistance associated with mining were actually aligned with those needs and were being delivered in a manner that provided meaningful benefits to residents.
Repisada also placed the issue in the context of the community’s longer-term future. He said decisions concerning mining and the use of its benefits should take into account not only current residents but also succeeding generations who would eventually live with the social, economic and environmental consequences of activities in the ancestral domain.
His position reflected a distinction raised by several community members in the dispute: the concern was not necessarily the continuation of mining, but whether mining-related benefits were being properly administered, appropriately distributed and directed toward the needs of the community.
Access to records
Repisada also described difficulties in obtaining documents concerning SDMP implementation.
He said: “We saw the figures in the book. We asked for the records, but it became difficult for us to obtain them.”
He said the community was initially told that the Community Relations Office would reproduce the documents.
“We were told that the Community Relations Office would photocopy them. In the end, we had to contribute money ourselves—₱500 each—so we could have the documents reproduced and reviewed in Mati.”
Elders seek change in management
The royalty dispute has also affected relationships within the Mandaya community.
Soledad P. Lumactod, 66, an elder of the Dianong clan, described what she said was a deterioration of relationships among community members as the dispute continued.
“We no longer want this kind of management. It has already damaged our relationships. What we want to preserve is not conflict, but our relationship with our siblings and our clan. Management is one thing, but our family ties are different. Before you take anyone's side, look at us first. Look at what is happening in our community before making a judgment,” she told VoxPop in a conversation.
Lumactod also questioned whether the community should continue supporting mining under the circumstances she described.
“No. Not anymore. In 2022, despite our reservations, we still accommodated their request for FPIC. But what happened afterward? They brought in non-Indigenous people, and there has been continuous conflict in our area,” she said.
Her statement also raises separate questions concerning the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) process.
The Barricade
The conflict continued after the July 22 confrontation. By August 14, Indigenous residents and local landowners were still maintaining a barricade in Macambol and also calling for direct dialogue with the mining company operating in the area over mining operations and governance concerns.
Their stated objection was not necessarily to the continued operation of the mine, but to the manner in which mining-related decisions, benefits, and community programs were being handled.
August 18: The dispute moves into the public record
On August 18, Indigenous leaders and other stakeholders held a media conference at Nuestra Señora de Guia Parish in Barangay Dawan, Mati City.
The gathering placed the royalty dispute before a wider audience and brought together concerns over mining operations, community development programs, Indigenous leadership and the management of financial benefits.
The conference followed the July 22 confrontation and the continuing barricade in Macambol. By then, the dispute had developed several interconnected dimensions: royalty management; Indigenous representation; mining-agreement consultations; SDMP implementation; CRDMP implementation; FPIC; and NCIP oversight.
But they converge on one question: whether the Indigenous community has meaningful access to information and decision-making over activities and funds generated from its ancestral domain.
Aquino faces malversation allegations, points to years of leadership dispute
Aquino, for her part, said she was accused by the opposing faction of public malversation, but disputed the allegation and instead pointed to a longer-running conflict over Indigenous leadership, community consultation and the management of affairs within the Mandaya ancestral domain. She said the dispute did not emerge suddenly. She traced the deterioration of relations within the community to the period from 2015 to 2024, which she described as years marked by the absence of regular assemblies, limited consultation and little visible engagement from the leadership.
She also raised concerns over the increasing presence of non-members within the ancestral domain.
Aquino said Indigenous Peoples were often approached when their signatures were needed for documents related to mining activities, but that broader consultation on matters affecting the community was limited.
Aquino's response to the malversation accusation
Aquino denied wrongdoing and maintained that the accusations were being raised within the context of the continuing conflict between competing groups.
She said the dispute should instead be examined through the records and formal actions that have shaped the community's leadership structure over the past several years.
Her account points to a conflict that has developed through successive petitions, community assemblies, competing resolutions, NCIP interventions and changes in clan recognition.
For Aquino, however, the central issue remains the authority of the recognized Indigenous leadership and the right of the community to determine who can make decisions on its behalf.
NCIP’s statement during the August 18 discussion
Meanwhile, the NCIP has yet to conduct a formal compliance review of the mining company's Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Indigenous Peoples affected by its operations, with the review only scheduled for September 8 following the July 22 conflict.
NCIP-Davao Technical Management Services Division chief Shirley Iguianon said the agency would examine whether the company had complied with the MOA's terms and conditions and, in the meantime, requested that no activities be conducted.
“We are going to set a MOA compliance review on September 8. We will review whether the company has been complying with their... with the terms and conditions of their MOA with the IPs,” Iguianon said.
But while Iguianon discussed an issue involving money, an anticipated “next release,” and the designation of an Ancestral Domain Management Office or Indigenous Peoples Organization, she did not provide details on the royalty payments at the center of the dispute — including the amount involved, the status of the funds, who was authorized to receive them, or how previous releases had been accounted for.
Iguianon said the absence of a new ADMO or IPO designation was linked to why another individual would assume the ADMO position “for the next release.” She also said one person being blamed in the dispute had not yet received money in an NCIP account.
What Hallmark says
Hallmark has now identified the Pujada Nickel Project in Barangay Macambol and its connection with the relevant mining agreements. The company has previously cited a January 7, 2002 Memorandum of Agreement with the Mandaya Tribal Council and NCIP Region 11, as well as an FPIC compliance certification issued in 2004. In January 2026, Hallmark was also reported as saying that its support for Indigenous communities and SDMP-related programs amounted to at least ₱20 million annually. DEF
For Part 2