Cruz v Secretary of DENR

GR No. 135885, December 6, 2000

Germaine Suzette Austero
Case No. 16 - CivRev (Property)

FACTS:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus
assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371, known as the Indigenous
People Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Respondents Secretary of the DENR and DBM through the Solicitor General filed a
consolidated comment wherein it states that they are of the view that IPRA is partly
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to
indigenous people and prays that the petition be granted in part.

Petitioners’ Contentions:

1. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following provisions of the IPRA:

a. Sec 3(a) which defines the extent and coverage of the ancestral domains, and
Sec. 3(b) which defines ancestral lands;
b. Sec. 5 which provides that ancestral domains are private but community
property of the indigenous peoples;
c. Sec. 6 which defines the composition of ancestral domains and ancestral
lands;
d. Sec 7 and 8 which recognize and enumerates the rights of indigenous
peoples over the ancestral domains and over the ancestral lands including
rights to natural resources;
e. Sec 57 which provides priority rights of the indigenous people in harvesting,
extraction, development, or exploration of minerals and other natural
resources
f. Sec. 58 which gives the indigenous people the responsibility to maintain,
develop, protect, and conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof
2. Petitioners also contend that by providing for an all-encompassing definition of
ancestral domains and ancestral lands violate the rights of private landowners
3. Petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA defining the powers and jurisdiction
of the NCIP and making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes
involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands

After due deliberation on the petition, the 7 members of the court voted to dismiss the
petition and 7 other members of the Court voted to grant the petition.

1
As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained, the
case was deliberated upon. However, after deliberation, the voting remained the same.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is
DISMISSED.

(Note: The procedural facts are quite short HOWEVER, even though the case was dismissed,
it attached the Justices’ separate opinions which extensively discussed the assailed
arguments by the petitioners)

Summary of Separate Opinions with respect to their votes:

For Dismissal:

● Justice Kapunan (joined by Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago) - sustained

the validity of the challenged provisions
● Justice Puno sustained all challenged provisions
● Justice Mendoza voted to dismiss the petition solely on the ground that it does not
raise a justiciable controversy and petitioners do not have the legal standing

For Grant of Petition:

● Justice Panganiban expressed the view that Sec. 3(a) (b), 5, 6, 7 (a) (b), 8, and other
related provisions of RA 8371 are unconstitutional; he reserves judgment on the
constitutionality of Secs. 58, 59, 65, and 66
● Justice Vitug expressed the view that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 are unconstitutional.
● Justice Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon join in the separate
opinions of Justices Panganiban and Vitug.

ISSUE:

Refer to the petitioner’s contentions/arguments and the respective assailed provisions of IPRA.

RULING:

(Note: Since the case was DISMISSED, discussion in this area will focus more on the
separate opinion of Justice Puno)

The Public Land Act (Act No. 926) - operated on the assumption that title to public lands
in the PH remained in the government. The term “public land” referred to all lands of the
public domains whose title still remained in the government and are thrown open to
private appropriation and settlement, and excluded the patrimonial property of the
government and the friar lands. It likewise placed all public and private lands in the
Philippines under the Torrens system.

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA 8371) - grants the indigenous cultural communities or
indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains
and ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these lands and domains, and the ownership
given is the indigenous concept of ownership under customary law which traces its origin
to native title.

2
Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous Peoples - refer to a group of people or
homogenous societies who have continuously lived as an organized community on
communally bounded and defined territory. These groups of people have actually
occupied, possessed, and utilized their territories under the claim of ownership since time
immemorial.

Land Titles, alien to ICCPs - Land titles do not exist in the indigenous people’s economic
and social system - the concept of individual land ownership under the civil law is alien to
them.

Ancestral Domains - all areas belonging to ICCs/IPs held under a claim of ownership,
occupied, or possessed by themselves or through their ancestry, communally or
individually since time immemorial, continuously until the present. It comprises lands,
inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein.

Ancestral Land - lands held by ICCS.IPs under the same conditions as ancestral domains
except that these are limited to lands and that these lands are not merely occupied and
possessed, but are also utilized by the ICCs.IPs under claims of individual or traditional
group ownership. It includes, but are not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or
paddies, private forests, swidden farms, and tree lots.

National Commission on Indigenous People - The NCIP issues a Certificate of Ancestral

Domain Title (CADT) in the name of the community concerned, leaving the allocation of
lands to any individual or indigenous corporate (family or clan) claimants to the ICCs/IPs
concerned to decide in accordance with customs and traditions.

The IPRA categorically declares ancestral lands and domains as never to have been
public land - Native title refers to ICCs/IPs’ preconquest rights to lands and domains held
under a claim of private ownership as far back memory reaches. These lands are presumed
to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest. The rights of ICCs/IPs to
their ancestral domains by virtue of native title shall be recognized and respected. Formal
recognition shall be embodied in a CADT. Like a Torrens title, it is evidence of private
ownership of land by native title.

Ancestral domains are the ICCs/IPs private but community property - It is private
simply because it is not part of the public domain but the ancestral domain is owned in
common by the ICCs/IPs and not by one particular person.

(Petitioner’s Contention No. 3) Customary Law - is a primary source of rights under the IPRA
and uniquely applies to ICCs/IPs, and its recognition does not depend on the absence of a
specific provision in the civil law. Custom is also recognized under the Civil Code as a
source of law. Some articles of the Civil Code expressly provide that custom should be
applied in cases where no codal provision is applicable. In other words, in the absence of
any applicable provision, custom, when duly proven, can define rights and liabilities. Harem
the indigenous concept of ownership under customary law is specifically acknowledged
and recognized.

(Petitioner’s Contention No. 1d) Natural Resources - There is nothing in IPRA that grants the
ICCs?IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral domains. The ICCs/IPs

3
are given the right to claim ownership over “lands, bodies of water, and all improvements
made by them within the domains.” It will be noted that this enumeration does not cover
waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests, or timber, etc., enumerated in Sec .2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution
as belonging to the State.

(Petitioner’s Contention No. 1d) Natural Resources - The right to negotiate the terms and
conditions over the natural resources covers only their exploration which must be for the
purpose of ensuring ecological and environment protection of, and conservation measures
in the ancestral domain - it does not extend to exploitation and development of natural
resources. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains with
the State and the ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to “manage and conserve” them for
future generations.

(Petitioner’s Contention No. 1e) Natural Resources - The rights granted by the IPRA to the
ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them the right
to small-scale utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their
large-scale development and exploitation. Section 57 does not mandate the State to
automatically give priority to the ICCs/IPs. The State has several options and it is within its
discretion to choose which option to pursue. Moreover, there is nothing in the law that
gives the ICCs/Ips the right to solely undertake the large-scale development of the natural
resources within their domains. The State does not lose control and ownership over the
resources. Sections 7(b) and 56 simply give due respect to the ICCs/IPs who, as actual
occupants of the land where the natural resources lie, have traditionally utilized these
resources for their subsistence and survival.