the right of ICC/IP to develop lands and NR within the AD does not deprive the State of ownership over

the NR, and of control and supervision in their development and exploitation. a. Sec.7a limits the right of ownership of the IP. But the Implementing Rules of IPRA included the term "natural resources" in such rights of ownership which is CONTRARY to Sec.2 Art.12 of the 1987 Consti. b. The small-scale utilization of NR in Sec.7b of the IPRA is allowed under par.3, Sec.2 Art.12 of the 1987 Consti. Managing and conserving these resources, by their very nature, necessarily reject utilization in a large-scale. c. The large-scale utilization of NR in Sec.57 of IPRA may be harmonized with par.1 and 4, Sec.2 Art.12 of the 1987 Consti. The grant of priority rights implies that there is a superior entity that owns these resources and who has the power to grant such preferential rights. (4) IPRA is a recognition of our active participation in the International Indigenous Movement.

VITUG [grant]
(1) IPRA effectively withdraws from the public domain the ancestral domains, as the notion of community property involves matters of proprietary interest AND also some forms of self-governance over the property. (2) The decision of the US Court in Carino vs. Insular Government cannot override the collective will of the people expressed in the Constitution. (3) Art.12 sec.5 par.2- "The constitutional aim is to get Congress to look closely into the customary laws and, with specificity and by proper recitals, to hew them to, and make them part of the stream of laws." There should be a balancing of interests between specific need of IP and imperatives of national interest.

KAPUNAN [dismiss]
~Preliminary issues(1) The petition presents an actual controversy. (2) Petitioners have the requisite standing. As citizens, they possess the public right to ensure that the national patrimony is not alienated and diminished in violation of the Constitution. As taxpayers, they possess the right to restrain officials from wasting