This case involved a challenge to provisions of the Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) regarding ownership and control of natural resources within ancestral domains. The petitioners argued that IPRA violated the Philippine constitution's regalian doctrine giving the state ownership over public lands and their natural resources. The Supreme Court held that IPRA does not contravene the constitution because it does not grant indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples ownership over natural resources, which remain state-owned, but gives them rights to small-scale utilization and priority in large-scale development. Ancestral lands are considered private lands belonging to indigenous groups by native title, not public lands.
This case involved a challenge to provisions of the Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) regarding ownership and control of natural resources within ancestral domains. The petitioners argued that IPRA violated the Philippine constitution's regalian doctrine giving the state ownership over public lands and their natural resources. The Supreme Court held that IPRA does not contravene the constitution because it does not grant indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples ownership over natural resources, which remain state-owned, but gives them rights to small-scale utilization and priority in large-scale development. Ancestral lands are considered private lands belonging to indigenous groups by native title, not public lands.
This case involved a challenge to provisions of the Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) regarding ownership and control of natural resources within ancestral domains. The petitioners argued that IPRA violated the Philippine constitution's regalian doctrine giving the state ownership over public lands and their natural resources. The Supreme Court held that IPRA does not contravene the constitution because it does not grant indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples ownership over natural resources, which remain state-owned, but gives them rights to small-scale utilization and priority in large-scale development. Ancestral lands are considered private lands belonging to indigenous groups by native title, not public lands.
Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian
Doctrine GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000 FACTS: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. ISSUE: Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution? HELD: No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the small scale utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and exploitation. Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to alienate the same.