Petitioners: Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa

Respondents: Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

Topic: Recognition of the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities

Rule of Law:

Republic Act 8731 or Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA)

Sec 22, Art II of the 1987 Constitution – “The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development.”

Sec 2, Art XII of the 1987 Constitution - “All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception
of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision
of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into co-production,
joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens...”

Doctrine: The IPRA recognizes the existence of the indigenous cultural communities or
indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in Philippine society. It grants these people the
ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and defines the extent
of these lands and domains. The ownership given is the indigenous concept of ownership under
customary law which traces its origin to native title.

Facts:

Petitioners brought the suit for prohibition and mandamus to assail the constitutionality of
certain provisions of Republic Act 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
of 1997 (IPRA), its implementing rules

Upon receiving the complaint, the Court required respondents Chairperson and Commissioners
of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to comment. NCIP defended the
IPRA’s constitutionality and prayed that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit.

The Secretaries of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the
Department of Budget and Management, through the Solicitor General, filed a consolidated
comment indicating that the IPRA is partly constitutional and prays that the petition be granted
in part.

Intervenors comprised of Sen. Juan Flavier, proponent of IPRA, and other groups of indigenous
peoples filed for Motion for Leave to Intervene and defended IPRA alongside NCIP, praying for
the petition’s dismissal.

Commission on Human Rights (CHR) likewise filed for a Motion to Intervene and to appear as
Amicus Curiae, asserting that the State must uphold the IPRA as it possessed the responsibility
to protect and guarantee the rights of disadvantaged peoples like the IPs

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following provisions of IPRA:

Section 3(a) which defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains, and Section 3(b)
which, in turn, defines ancestral lands;

Section 5, in relation to section 3(a), which provides that ancestral domains including inalienable
public lands, bodies of water, mineral and other resources found within ancestral domains are
private but community property of the indigenous peoples;

Section 6 in relation to section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the composition of ancestral
domains and ancestral lands;

Section 7 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the
ancestral domains; ○

Section 8 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the
ancestral lands; ○

Section 57 which provides for priority rights of the indigenous peoples in the harvesting,
extraction, development or exploration of minerals and other natural resources within the
areas claimed to be their ancestral domains, and the right to enter into agreements with non-
indigenous peoples for the development and utilization of natural resources therein for a period
not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years; and

Section 58 which gives the indigenous peoples the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect
and conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof which are found to be necessary for
critical watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover or
reforestation.
Sections 51, 52, 53, and 59 which detail the process of delineation and recognition of ancestral
domains and which vest on the NCIP the sole authority to delineate ancestral domains and
ancestral lands;

Section 52 which provides that upon certification by the NCIP that a particular area is an
ancestral domain and upon notification to the following officials, namely, the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources, Secretary of Interior and Local Governments, Secretary of
Justice and Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, the jurisdiction of said
officials over said area terminates;

Section 63 which provides the customary law, traditions and practices of indigenous peoples
shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims of ownership, hereditary succession
and settlement of land disputes, and that any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation thereof
shall be resolved in favor of the indigenous peoples;

Section 65 which states that customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve disputes
involving indigenous peoples; and

Section 66 which vests on the NCIP the jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights
of the indigenous peoples

Petitioners assail that the stated provisions of IPRA and its IRR are unconstitutional because:

They violate the Regalian doctrine1 as they promote unlawful deprivation of State’s ownership
over lands of public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources

The all-encompassing definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands”, which might
include private lands found within said areas, violate the rights of private landowners

Provisions defining the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making customary law applicable
to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands violate the due
process clause of the Constitution

Respondents and intervenors argued that:

All ancestral domains and lands are outside the coverage of public domain; and that these
properties - including forests, bodies of water, minerals and parks found therein - are private

1 Regalian Doctrine
- aka jura regalia was first introduced by the Spaniards through the laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas o Spain’s ‘discovery’
and conquest of the Philippines thus led to the Spaniards decree that all land which had not been bestowed by the royal crown with
deeds or grants belonged to the crown and were free to be disposed as the crown, its viceroys, audencias etc. wished
- Basis of Sec 2 article XII of the 1987 Constitution
and have never been part of the public domain, because they have belonged to the indigenous
people's ancestors since time immemorial.

NCIP: IPRA does not violate the Constitution, because it does not grant ownership of public
domains and natural resources to ICCs/IPs. "Rather, it recognizes and mandates respect for the
rights of indigenous peoples over their ancestral lands and domains that had never been lands
of the public domain."

Issue and Holding: Is the IPRA law constitutional?

Yes, the IPRA is constitutional because the case against it was dismissed after no majority was
attained in both first and second voting (7-7 vote). 2

Ruling: Petition is DISMISSED for failure obtain necessary majority after redeliberation of voting.

Separate Opinion:

Vitug, J.

In favor of petition; IPRA is unconstitutional

IPRA law has several good points but requires re-examination. The IPRA law is one of great
concern and of paramount national interest, thus, it is imperative that balance is obtained.

Provisions of the IPRA law which defines and provides the rights of “Ancestral Domains” are
“beyond the context of fundamental law and virtually amount to undue delegation, if not an
unacceptable abdication, of State authority over a significant area of the country and its
patrimony.”

Puno, J. -Votes to uphold constitutionality of IPRA (dismiss petition)

Ancestral Domains and Ancestral Lands are the Private Property of Indigenous Peoples and do
not Constitute Part of the Land of the Public Domain

The concept of Native Title: this refers to the IPs pre-conquest rights over lands and domains
held under private ownership as far back as memory reaches. These lands are deemed to never
have been public lands and presumed to have been held that way even before Spanish Conquest

2 Rule 56, Sec 7 of Rules of Civil Procedure

Carino Doctrine- only case that specifically and categorically recognizes native title Indigenous
Concept of Ownership and Customary Law

Ownership : Ancestral domains are the IPs private but community property, private just in the
sense that it is not public domain, but it is owned by the whole community and not just one
person

Customary Law: Custom, from which customary law is derived, is also recognized under the Civil
Code as a source of law

The indigenous concept of ownership under customary law is specifically acknowledged and
recognized and coexists with the civil law concept and the laws on land titling and land
registration C. Sections 7(a), 7(b) and 57 of the IPRA do not violate the Regalian Doctrine
enshrined in Sec 2, Art XII of the 1987 Constitution

According to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution the Congress may allow small-scale
utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, which is the case in the IPRA provisions and
so complies with the Regalian Doctrine

Large scale utilization under sec 57 of the IPRA is also allowed under Par 1 and 4, Sec 2, Art. XII
of the 1987 Constitution

Section 7(a) defining ownership does not cover those enumerated in Sec 2 of the Constitution
thus it complies with the Regalian Doctrine.

However, Sec 1, Part II, Rule III of the Implementing Rules, which mentions IPs right of
ownership over lands, waters, and natural resource, goes beyond the parameters of Sec 7 (a) of
the IPRA and is unconstitutional

The IPRA is recognition of our active participation in the indigenous international movement

Panganiban, J.

In favor of petition

Sec. 2 Art XII of the 1987 Constitution iterates the absolute power of the state over public lands
and resources located within its territorial scope.

R.A. 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act is in direct violation of a pre-existing caveat in
the Constitution by which the Filipino people are governed.

While fundamental law of the country mandates the protection of the Indigenous People and
their communities (cultural, societal, encompassing), and that preferential treatment to the
disadvantaged members of the citizenry such as they should be extended, the perpetual
inequality of access to the country’s wealth, is unconstitutional.

Agrees with the position of the petitioners concerning the scope and dominion of the
Constitution, that the political will of the State should be upheld by all citizens of the Filipino
nation, indigenous or not. Thus, Section 2, Article XII should be implementable with regards to
RA 8371.

Such claims by the NCIP that “IPRA does not violate the Constitution because it does not grant
ownership of public domains and natural resources to IPs. Rather, it recognizes and mandates
respect for the rights of indigenous people over their ancestral lands and domains that had
never been lands of the public domain” find no legal support. Nowhere in the Constitution is
there a provision that exempts such lands and domains from its coverage. Quite the contrary, it
declares that all lands of the public domain and natural resources are ‘owned by the state’ and
with exceptions to agricultural lands ‘all other natural resources shall not be alienated.’

On Intervenors Flavier, et al. differentiating the concept of ownership of the ICCs/IPs with that
defined by Articles 427 and 428 of the Civil Code: This concept perpetually withdraws such
property from the control of the State and from its enjoyment by other citizens of the Republic.
The perpetual and exclusive character of private respondents’ claims simply makes them
repugnant to basic fairness and equality.

Kapunan, J. Votes to dismiss petition

The virtue of native land title does not diminish the States's ownership of the
land because said ancestral domain and land was private, and therefore never a
part of public domain
The constitutional provision vesting ownership of natural resources is not violated
in the IPRA law.
Indigenous people are given "priority rights" over natural resources found in their
ancestral domains, but the State retains full control and ownership of the said
natural resources.
protects the both the rights of the indigenous people and the rights of the non-
indigenous people with vested rights of people who have acquired ownership and
the rights to explore and exploit the natural resources of the land.
Due process clause of the constitution is not violated by the IPRA law.

The NCIP as an independent agency does not infringe upon the rights of the Office
of the President.