Republic Act No.

8371 October 29, 1997 AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, CREATING A NATIONAL COMMISSION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: : CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997." Section 2. Declaration of State Policies. - The State shall recognize and promote all the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) hereunder enumerated within the framework of the Constitution: a) The State shall recognize and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs within the framework of national unity and development; b)The State shall protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains to ensure their economic, social and cultural well being and shall recognize the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain; c) The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national laws and policies; d) The State shall guarantee that members of the ICCs/IPs regardless of sex, shall equally enjoy the full measure of human rights and freedoms without distinctions or discriminations; e) The State shall take measures, with the participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned, to protect their rights and guarantee respect for their cultural integrity, and to ensure that members of the ICCs/IPs benefit on an equal footing from the rights and opportunities which national laws and regulations grant to other members of the population and f) The State recognizes its obligations to respond to the strong expression of the ICCs/IPs for cultural integrity by assuring maximum ICC/IP participation in the direction of education, health, as well as other services of ICCs/IPs, in order to render such services more responsive to the needs and desires of these communities. Towards these ends, the State shall institute and establish the necessary mechanisms to enforce and guarantee the realization of these rights, taking into consideration their customs, traditions, values, beliefs, their rights to their ancestral domains. CHAPTER II DEFINITION OF TERMS Section 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean: a) Ancestral Domains - Subject to Section 56 hereof, refer to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands,inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals, corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral land, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which their traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators; b) Ancestral Lands - Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual

or traditional group ownership,continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots; c) Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title - refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of possession and ownership of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral domains identified and delineated in accordance with this law; d) Certificate of Ancestral Lands Title - refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral lands; e) Communal Claims - refer to claims on land, resources and rights thereon, belonging to the whole community within a defined territory f) Customary Laws - refer to a body of written and/or unwritten rules, usages, customs and practices traditionally and continually recognized, accepted and observed by respective ICCs/IPs; g) Free and Prior Informed Consent - as used in this Act shall mean the consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs to; be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the activity, in a language an process understandable to the community; h) Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples - refer to a group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by other, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed customs, tradition and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and culture, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains; i) Indigenous Political Structure - refer to organizational and cultural leadership systems, institutions, relationships, patterns and processed for decision-making and participation, identified by ICCs/IPs such as, but not limited to, Council of Elders, Council of Timuays, Bodong Holder, or any other tribunal or body of similar nature; j) Individual Claims - refer to claims on land and rights thereon which have been devolved to individuals, families and clans including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies and tree lots; k) National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) - refers to the office created under this Act, which shall be under the Office of the President, and which shall be the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to recognize, protect and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs; l) Native Title - refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest; m) Nongovernment Organization - refers to a private, nonprofit voluntary organization that has been organized primarily for the delivery of various services to the ICCs/IPs and has an established track record for effectiveness and acceptability in the community where it serves; n) People's Organization - refers to a private, nonprofit voluntary organization of members of an ICC/IP which is accepted as representative of such ICCs/IPs; o) Sustainable Traditional Resource Rights - refer to the rights of ICCs/IPs to sustainably use,manage, protect and conserve a) land, air, water, and minerals; b) plants, animals and other

organisms; c) collecting, fishing and hunting grounds; d) sacred sites; and e) other areas of economic, ceremonial and aesthetic value in accordance with their indigenous knowledge, beliefs, systems and practices; and p) Time Immemorial - refers to a period of time when as far back as memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner, and utilized a defined territory devolved to them, by operation of customary law or inherited from their ancestors, in accordance with their customs and traditions. CHAPTER III RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL DOMAINS Section 4. Concept of Ancestral Lands/Domains. - Ancestral lands/domains shall include such concepts of territories which cover not only the physical environment but the total environment including the spiritual and cultural bonds to the area which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy and use and to which they have claims of ownership. Section 5. Indigenous Concept of Ownership. - Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the view that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that ancestral domains are the ICC's/IP's private but community property which belongs to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable traditional resource rights. Section 6. Composition of Ancestral Lands/Domains. - Ancestral lands and domains shall consist of all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs as referred under Sec. 3, items (a) and (b) of this Act. Section 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains. - The rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs t their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights shall include: a. Rights of Ownership.- The right to claim ownership over lands, bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them at any time within the domains; b. Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources . - Subject to Section 56 hereof, right to develop, control and use lands and territories traditionally occupied, owned, or used; to manage and conserve natural resources within the territories and uphold the responsibilities for future generations; to benefit and share the profits from allocation and utilization of the natural resources found therein; the right to negotiate the terms and conditions for the exploration of natural resources in the areas for the purpose of ensuring ecological, environmental protection and the conservation measures, pursuant to national and customary laws; the right to an informed and intelligent participation in the formulation and implementation of any project, government or private, that will affect or impact upon the ancestral domains and to receive just and fair compensation for any damages which they sustain as a result of the project; and the right to effective measures by the government to prevent any interfere with, alienation and encroachment upon these rights; c. Right to Stay in the Territories- The right to stay in the territory and not be removed therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free and prior informed consent, nor through any means other than eminent domain. Where relocation is considered necessary as an exceptional measure, such relocation shall take place only with the free and prior informed consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned and whenever possible, they shall be guaranteed the right to return to their ancestral domains, as soon as the grounds for relocation cease to exist. When such return is not possible, as determined by agreement or through appropriate procedures, ICCs/IPs shall be provided in all possible cases with lands of quality and legal status at least equal to that of the land previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development. Persons thus relocated shall likewise be fully compensated for any resulting loss or injury; d. Right in Case of Displacement. - In case displacement occurs as a result of natural catastrophes, the State shall endeavor to resettle the displaced ICCs/IPs in suitable areas where they can have temporary life support system: Provided, That the displaced ICCs/IPs shall have the right to return to their abandoned lands until such time that the normalcy and safety of such lands shall be determined: Provided, further, That should their ancestral domain cease to exist and normalcy and safety of the previous settlements are not possible, displaced ICCs/IPs shall

enjoy security of tenure over lands to which they have been resettled: Provided, furthermore, That basic services and livelihood shall be provided to them to ensure that their needs are adequately addressed: e. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants . - Right to regulate the entry of migrant settlers and organizations into the domains; f. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water. - For this purpose, the ICCs/IPs shall have access to integrated systems for the management of their inland waters and air space; g. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations. - The right to claim parts of the ancestral domains which have been reserved for various purposes, except those reserved and intended for common and public welfare and service; and h. Right to Resolve Conflict. - Right to resolve land conflicts in accordance with customary laws of the area where the land is located, and only in default thereof shall the complaints be submitted to amicable settlement and to the Courts of Justice whenever necessary. Section 8. Rights to Ancestral Lands. - The right of ownership and possession of the ICCs/IPs, to their ancestral lands shall be recognized and protected. a. Right to transfer land/property. - Such right shall include the right to transfer land or property rights to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs, subject to customary laws and traditions of the community concerned. b. Right to Redemption. - In cases where it is shown that the transfer of land/property rights by virtue of any agreement or devise, to a non-member of the concerned ICCs/IPs is tainted by the vitiated consent of the ICCs/IPs,or is transferred for an unconscionable consideration or price, the transferor ICC/IP shall have the right to redeem the same within a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years from the date of transfer. Section 9. Responsibilities of ICCs/IPs to their Ancestral Domains. - ICCs/IPs occupying a duly certified ancestral domain shall have the following responsibilities: a. Maintain Ecological Balance- To preserve, restore, and maintain a balanced ecology in the ancestral domain by protecting the flora and fauna, watershed areas, and other reserves; b. Restore Denuded Areas- To actively initiate, undertake and participate in the reforestation of denuded areas and other development programs and projects subject to just and reasonable remuneration; and c. Observe Laws- To observe and comply with the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations for its effective implementation. Section 10. Unauthorized and Unlawful Intrusion . - Unauthorized and unlawful intrusion upon, or use of any portion of the ancestral domain, or any violation of the rights herein before enumerated, shall be punishable under this law. Furthermore, the Government shall take measures to prevent non-ICCs/IPs from taking advantage of the ICCs/IPs customs or lack of understanding of laws to secure ownership, possession of land belonging to said ICCs/IPs. Section 11. Recognition of Ancestral Domain Rights. - The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains by virtue of Native Title shall be recognized and respected. Formal recognition, when solicited by ICCs/IPs concerned, shall be embodied in a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which shall recognize the title of the concerned ICCs/IPs over the territories identified and delineated. Section 12. Option to Secure Certificate of Title under Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. - Individual members of cultural communities, with respect to individually-owned ancestral lands who, by themselves or through their predecessors-in -interest, have been in continuous possession and occupation of the same in the concept of owner since the immemorial or for a period of not less than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the approval of this Act and uncontested by the members of the same ICCs/IPs shall have the option to secure title to their ancestral lands under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. For this purpose, said individually-owned ancestral lands, which are agricultural in character and actually used for agricultural, residential, pasture, and tree farming purposes, including those with a slope of eighteen percent (18%) or more, are hereby classified as alienable and disposable agricultural lands.

The option granted under this Section shall be exercised within twenty (20) years from the approval of this Act. CHAPTER IV RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNANCE AND EMPOWERMENT Section 13. Self-Governance. - The State recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to self-governance and self-determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and institutions. Consequently, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Section 14. Support for Autonomous Regions. - The State shall continue to strengthen and support the autonomous regions created under the Constitution as they may require or need. The State shall likewise encourage other ICCs/IPs not included or outside Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera to use the form and content of their ways of life as may be compatible with the fundamental rights defined in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and other internationally recognized human rights. Section 15. Justice System, Conflict Resolution Institutions and Peace Building Processes . - The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights. Section 16. Right to Participate in Decision -Making . - ICCs/IPs have the right to participate fully, if they so choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and destinies through procedures determined by them as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous political structures. Consequently, the State shall ensure that the ICCs/IPs shall be given mandatory representation in policy-making bodies and other local legislative councils. Section 17. Right to Determine and Decide Priorities for Development . - The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs, institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or use. They shall participate in the formulation,implementation and evaluation of policies, plans and programs for national, regional and local development which may directly affect them. Section 18. Tribal Barangays. - The ICCs/IPs living in contiguous areas or communities where they form the predominant population but which are located in municipalities, provinces or cities where they do not constitute the majority of the population, may form or constitute a separate barangay in accordance with the Local Government Code on the creation of tribal barangays. Section 19. Role of Peoples Organizations. - The State shall recognize and respect the role of independent ICCs/IPs organizations to enable the ICCs/IPs to pursue and protect their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means. Section 20. Means for Development /Empowerment of ICCs/IPs. - The Government shall establish the means for the full development/empowerment of the ICCs/IPs own institutions and initiatives and, where necessary, provide the resources needed therefor. CHAPTER V SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS Section 21. Equal Protection and Non-discrimination of ICCs/IPs. - Consistent with the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights including the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and International Human Rights Law, the State shall, with due recognition of their distinct characteristics and identity, accord to the members of the ICCs/IPs the rights, protections and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the citizenry. It shall extend to them the same employment rights, opportunities, basic services, educational and other rights and privileges available to every member of the society. Accordingly, the State shall likewise ensure that the employment of any form of force of coersion against ICCs/IPs shall be dealt with by law. The State shall ensure that the fundamental human rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution and relevant international instruments are guaranteed also to indigenous women. Towards this end, no provision in this Act shall be interpreted so as to result in the diminution of rights and privileges already recognized and accorded to women under existing laws of general application.

Section 22. Rights during Armed Conflict. - ICCs/IPs have the right to special protection and security in periods of armed conflict. The State shall observe international standards, in particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, for the protection of civilian populations in circumstances of emergency and armed conflict, and shall not recruit members of the ICCs/IPs against their will into armed forces, and in particular, for the use against other ICCs/IPs; not recruit children of ICCs/IPs into the armed forces under any circumstance; nor force indigenous individuals to abandon their lands, territories and means of subsistence, or relocate them in special centers for military purposes under any discriminatory condition. Section 23. Freedom from Discrimination and Right to Equal Opportunity and Treatment . - It shall be the right of the ICCs/IPs to be free from any form of discrimination, with respect to recruitment and conditions of employment, such that they may enjoy equal opportunities as other occupationally-related benefits, informed of their rights under existing labor legislation and of means available to them for redress, not subject to any coercive recruitment systems, including bonded labor and other forms of debt servitude; and equal treatment in employment for men and women, including the protection from sexual harassment. Towards this end, the State shall within the framework of national laws and regulations, and in cooperation with the ICCs/IPs concerned, adopt special measures to ensure the effective protection with regard to the recruitment and conditions of employment of persons belonging to these communities, to the extent that they are not effectively protected by the laws applicable to workers in general. ICCs/IPs shall have the right to association and freedom for all trade union activities and the right to conclude collective bargaining agreements with employers' conditions. They shall likewise have the right not to be subject to working conditions hazardous to their health, particularly through exposure to pesticides and other toxic substances. Section 24. Unlawful Acts Pertaining to Employment . - It shall be unlawful for any person: a. To discriminate against any ICC/IP with respect to the terms and conditions of employment on account of their descent. Equal remuneration shall be paid to ICC/IP and non-ICC/IP for work of equal value; and b. To deny any ICC/IP employee any right or benefit herein provided for or to discharge them for the purpose of preventing them from enjoying any of the rights or benefits provided under this Act. Section 25. Basic Services. - The ICC/IP have the right to special measures for the immediate, effective and continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions, including in the areas of employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous women, elderly, youth, children and differently-abled persons. Accordingly, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to government 's basic services which shall include, but not limited to water and electrical facilities, education, health and infrastructure. Section 26. Women. - ICC/IP women shall enjoy equal rights and opportunities with men, as regards the social, economic, political and cultural spheres of life. The participation of indigenous women in the decision-making process in all levels, as well as in the development of society, shall be given due respect and recognition. The State shall provide full access to education, maternal and child care, health and nutrition, and housing services to indigenous women. Vocational, technical, professional and other forms of training shall be provided to enable these women to fully participate in all aspects of social life. As far as possible, the State shall ensure that indigenous women have access to all services in their own languages. Section 27. Children and Youth. - The State shall recognize the vital role of the children and youth of ICCs/IPs in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being. Towards this end, the State shall support all government programs intended for the development and rearing of the children and youth of ICCs/IPs for civic efficiency and establish such mechanisms as may be necessary for the protection of the rights of the indigenous children and youth. Section 28. Integrated System of Education . - The State shall, through the NCIP, provide a complete, adequate and integrated system of education, relevant to the needs of the children and Young people of ICCs/IPs.

CHAPTER VI CULTURAL INTEGRITY Section 29. Protection of Indigenous Culture, traditions and institutions . - The state shall respect, recognize and protect the right of the ICCs/IPs to preserve and protect their culture, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies. Section 30. Educational Systems. - The State shall provide equal access to various cultural opportunities to the ICCs/IPs through the educational system, public or cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives without prejudice to their right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions by providing education in their own language, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. Indigenous children/youth shall have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State. Section 31. Recognition of Cultural Diversity. - The State shall endeavor to have the dignity and diversity of the cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations of the ICCs/IPs appropriately reflected in all forms of education, public information and cultural-educational exchange. Consequently, the State shall take effective measures, in consultation with ICCs/IPs concerned, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among ICCs/IPs and all segments of society. Furthermore, the Government shall take effective measures to ensure that Stateowned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. The State shall likewise ensure the participation of appropriate indigenous leaders in schools, communities and international cooperative undertakings like festivals, conferences, seminars and workshops to promote and enhance their distinctive heritage and values. Section 32. Community Intellectual Rights. - ICCs/IPs have the right to practice and revitalize their own cultural traditions and customs. The State shall preserve, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual, religious, and spiritual property taken without their free and prior informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. Section 33. Rights to Religious, Cultural Sites and Ceremonies . - ICCs/IPs shall have the right to manifest, practice, develop teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect and have access to their religious and cultural sites; the right to use and control of ceremonial object; and the right to the repatriation of human remains. Accordingly, the State shall take effective measures, in cooperation with the burial sites, be preserved, respected and protected. To achieve this purpose, it shall be unlawful to: a. Explore, excavate or make diggings on archeological sites of the ICCs/IPs for the purpose of obtaining materials of cultural values without the free and prior informed consent of the community concerned; and b. Deface, remove or otherwise destroy artifacts which are of great importance to the ICCs/IPs for the preservation of their cultural heritage. Section 34. Right to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices and to Develop own Sciences and Technologies. - ICCs/IPs are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership and control and protection of their cultural and intellectual rights. They shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other genetic resources, seeds, including derivatives of these resources, traditional medicines and health practices, vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literature, designs, and visual and performing arts. Section 35. Access to Biological and Genetic Resources. - Access to biological and genetic resources and to indigenous knowledge related to the conservation, utilization and enhancement of these resources, shall be allowed within ancestral lands and domains of the ICCs/IPs only with a free and prior informed consent of such communities, obtained in accordance with customary laws of the concerned community. Section 36. Sustainable Agro-Technical Development . - The State shall recognize the right of ICCs/IPs to a sustainable agro-technological development and shall formulate and implement programs of action for its effective implementation. The State shall likewise promote the bio-genetic and resource

management systems among the ICCs/IPs and shall encourage cooperation among government agencies to ensure the successful sustainable development of ICCs/IPs. Section 37. Funds for Archeological and Historical Sites. - The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to receive from the national government all funds especially earmarked or allocated for the management and preservation of their archeological and historical sites and artifacts with the financial and technical support of the national government agencies. CHAPTER VII NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP) Section 38. National Commission on Indigenous Cultural Communities /Indigenous Peoples (NCCP). - to carry out the policies herein set forth, there shall be created the National Commission on ICCs/IPs (NCIP), which shall be the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being of the ICCs/IPs and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. Section 39. Mandate. - The NCIP shall protect and promote the interest and well-being of the ICCs/IPs with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions. Section 40. Composition. - The NCIP shall be an independent agency under the Office of the President and shall be composed of seven (7) Commissioners belonging to ICCs/IPs, one (1) of whom shall be the Chairperson. The Commissioners shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines from a list of recommendees submitted by authentic ICCs/IPs: Provided, That the seven (7) Commissioners shall be appointed specifically from each of the following ethnographic areas: Region I and the Cordilleras; Region II; the rest of Luzon; Island Groups including Mindoro, Palawan, Romblon, Panay and the rest of the Visayas; Northern and Western Mindanao; Southern and Eastern Mindanao; and Central Mindanao: Provided, That at least two (2) of the seven (7) Commissioners shall be women. Section 41. Qualifications, Tenure, Compensation . - The Chairperson and the six (6) Commissioners must be natural born Filipino citizens, bonafide members of ICCs/IPs as certified by his/her tribe, experienced in ethnic affairs and who have worked for at least ten (10) years with an ICC/IP community and/or any government agency involved in ICC/IP, at least 35 years of age at the time of appointment, and must be of proven honesty and integrity: Provided, That at least two (2) of the seven (7) Commissioners shall be the members of the Philippine Bar: Provided, further, That the members of the NCIP shall hold office for a period of three (3) years, and may be subject to re-appointment for another term: Provided, furthermore, That no person shall serve for more than two (2) terms. Appointment to any vacancy shall only be for the unexpired term of the predecessor and in no case shall a member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity: Provided, finally, That the Chairperson and the Commissioners shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the Salary Standardization Law. Section 42. Removal from Office. - Any member of the NCIP may be removed from office by the President, on his own initiative or upon recommendation by any indigenous community, before the expiration of his term for cause and after complying with due process requirement of law. Section 43. Appointment of Commissioners. - The President shall appoint the seven (7) Commissioners of the NCIP within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act. Section 44. Powers and Functions. - To accomplish its mandate, the NCIP shall have the following powers, jurisdiction and function: a) To serve as the primary government agency through which ICCs/IPs can seek government assistance and as the medium, thorough which such assistance may be extended; b) To review and assess the conditions of ICCs/IPs including existing laws and policies pertinent thereto and to propose relevant laws and policies to address their role in national development; c) To formulate and implement policies, plans, programs and projects for the economic, social and cultural development of the ICCs/IPs and to monitor the implementation thereof; d) To request and engage the services and support of experts from other agencies of government or employ private experts and consultants as may be required in the pursuit of its objectives; e) To issue certificate of ancestral land/domain title; f) Subject to existing laws, to enter into contracts, agreements, or arrangement, with government or private agencies or entities as may be necessary to attain the objectives of this Act, and

subject to the approval of the President, to obtain loans from government lending institutions and other lending institutions to finance its programs; g) To negotiate for funds and to accept grants, donations, gifts and/or properties in whatever form and from whatever source, local and international, subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines, for the benefit of ICCs/IPs and administer the same in accordance with the terms thereof; or in the absence of any condition, in such manner consistent with the interest of ICCs/IPs as well as existing laws; h) To coordinate development programs and projects for the advancement of the ICCs/IPs and to oversee the proper implementation thereof; i) To convene periodic conventions or assemblies of IPs to review, assess as well as propose policies or plans; j) To advise the President of the Philippines on all matters relating to the ICCs/IPs and to submit within sixty (60) days after the close of each calendar year, a report of its operations and achievements; k) To submit to Congress appropriate legislative proposals intended to carry out the policies under this Act; l) To prepare and submit the appropriate budget to the Office of the President; m) To issue appropriate certification as a pre-condition to the grant of permit, lease, grant, or any other similar authority for the disposition, utilization, management and appropriation by any private individual, corporate entity or any government agency, corporation or subdivision thereof on any part or portion of the ancestral domain taking into consideration the consensus approval of the ICCs/IPs concerned; n) To decide all appeals from the decisions and acts of all the various offices within the Commission: o) To promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the implementation of this Act; p) To exercise such other powers and functions as may be directed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines; and q) To represent the Philippine ICCs/IPs in all international conferences and conventions dealing with indigenous peoples and other related concerns. Section 45. Accessibility and Transparency. - Subject to such limitations as may be provided by law or by rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, all official records, documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as research data used as basis for policy development of the Commission shall be made accessible to the public. Section 46. Officers within the NCIP. - The NCIP shall have the following offices which shall be responsible for the implementation of the policies herein after provided: a. Ancestral Domains Office - The Ancestral Domain Office shall be responsible for the identification, delineation and recognition of ancestral land/domains. It shall also be responsible for the management of ancestral lands/domains in accordance with the master plans as well as the implementation of the ancestral domain rights of the ICCs/IPs as provided in Chapter III of this Act. It shall also issue, upon the free and prior informed consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned, certification prior to the grant of any license, lease or permit for the exploitation of natural resources affecting the interests of ICCs/IPs in protecting the territorial integrity of all ancestral domains. It shall likewise perform such other functions as the Commission may deem appropriate and necessary; b. Office on Policy, Planning and Research - The Office on Policy, Planning and Research shall be responsible for the formulation of appropriate policies and programs for ICCs/IPs such as, but not limited to, the development of a Five-Year Master Plan for the ICCs/IPs. Such plan shall undergo a process such that every five years, the Commission shall endeavor to assess the plan and make ramifications in accordance with the changing situations. The Office shall also undertake the documentation of customary law and shall establish and maintain a Research Center that would serve as a depository of ethnographic information for monitoring, evaluation and policy formulation. It shall assist the legislative branch of the national government in the formulation of appropriate legislation benefiting ICCs/IPs.

c. Office of Education, Culture and Health - The Office on Culture, Education and Health shall be responsible for the effective implementation of the education, cultural and related rights as provided in this Act. It shall assist, promote and support community schools, both formal and non-formal, for the benefit of the local indigenous community, especially in areas where existing educational facilities are not accessible to members of the indigenous group. It shall administer all scholarship programs and other educational rights intended for ICC/IP beneficiaries in coordination with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the Commission on Higher Education. It shall undertake, within the limits of available appropriation, a special program which includes language and vocational training, public health and family assistance program and related subjects. It shall also identify ICCs/IPs with potential training in the health profession and encourage and assist them to enroll in schools of medicine, nursing, physical therapy and other allied courses pertaining to the health profession. Towards this end, the NCIP shall deploy a representative in each of the said offices who shall personally perform the foregoing task and who shall receive complaints from the ICCs/IPs and compel action from appropriate agency. It shall also monitor the activities of the National Museum and other similar government agencies generally intended to manage and preserve historical and archeological artifacts of the ICCs /IPs and shall be responsible for the implementation of such other functions as the NCIP may deem appropriate and necessary; d. Office on Socio-Economic Services and Special Concerns - The Office on Socio-Economic Services and Special Concerns shall serve as the Office through which the NCIP shall coordinate with pertinent government agencies specially charged with the implementation of various basic socio-economic services, policies, plans and programs affecting the ICCs/IPs to ensure that the same are properly and directly enjoyed by them. It shall also be responsible for such other functions as the NCIP may deem appropriate and necessary; e. Office of Empowerment and Human Rights - The Office of Empowerment and Human Rights shall ensure that indigenous socio- political, cultural and economic rights are respected and recognized. It shall ensure that capacity building mechanisms are instituted and ICCs/IPs are afforded every opportunity, if they so choose, to participate in all level decision-making. It shall likewise ensure that the basic human rights, and such other rights as the NCIP may determine, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations are protected and promoted; f. Administrative Office - The Administrative Office shall provide the NCIP with economical, efficient and effective services pertaining to personnel, finance, records, equipment, security, supplies, and related services. It shall also administer the Ancestral Domains Fund; and g. Legal Affairs Office - There shall be a Legal Affairs Office which shall advice the NCIP on all legal matters concerning ICCs/IPs and which shall be responsible for providing ICCs/IPs with legal assistance in litigation involving community interest. It shall conduct preliminary investigation on the basis of complaints filed by the ICCs/IPs against a natural or juridical person believed to have violated ICCs/IPs rights. On the basis of its findings, it shall initiate the filing of appropriate legal or administrative action to the NCIP. Section 47. Other Offices. - The NCIP shall have the power to create additional offices as it may deem necessary subject to existing rules and regulations. Section 48. Regional and Field Offices. - Existing regional and field offices shall remain to function under the strengthened organizational structure of the NCIP. Other field office shall be created wherever appropriate and the staffing pattern thereof shall be determined by the NCIP: Provided, That in provinces where there are ICCs/IPs but without field offices, the NCIP shall establish field offices in said provinces. Section 49. Office of the Executive Director . - The NCIP shall create the Office of the Executive Director which shall serve as its secretariat. The office shall be headed by an Executive Director who shall be appointed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the NCIP on a permanent basis. The staffing pattern of the office shall be determined by the NCIP subject to existing rules and regulations. Section 50. Consultative Body. - A body consisting of the traditional leaders, elders and representatives from the women and youth sectors of the different ICCs/IPs shall be constituted by the

NCIP from the time to time to advise it on matters relating to the problems, aspirations and interests of the ICCs/IPs. CHAPTER VIII DELINEATION AND RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS Section 51. Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Domains. - Self-delineation shall be guiding principle in the identification and delineation of ancestral domains. As such, the ICCs/IPs concerned shall have a decisive role in all the activities pertinent thereto. The Sworn Statement of the Elders as to the Scope of the territories and agreements/pacts made with neighboring ICCs/IPs, if any, will be essential to the determination of these traditional territories. The Government shall take the necessary steps to identify lands which the ICCs/IPs concerned traditionally occupy and guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession thereto. Measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the rights of the ICCs/IPs concerned to land which may no longer be exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators. Section 52. Delineation Process. - The identification and delineation of ancestral domains shall be done in accordance with the following procedures: a. Ancestral Domains Delineated Prior to this Act - The provisions hereunder shall not apply to ancestral domains/lands already delineated according to DENR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1993, nor to ancestral lands and domains delineated under any other community/ancestral domain program prior to the enactment of his law. ICCs/IPs enactment of this law shall have the right to apply for the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) over the area without going through the process outlined hereunder; b. Petition for Delineation - The process of delineating a specific perimeter may be initiated by the NCIP with the consent of the ICC/IP concerned, or through a Petition for Delineation filed with the NCIP, by a majority of the members of the ICCs/IPs; c. Delineation Paper - The official delineation of ancestral domain boundaries including census of all community members therein, shall be immediately undertaken by the Ancestral Domains Office upon filing of the application by the ICCs/IPs concerned. Delineation will be done in coordination with the community concerned and shall at all times include genuine involvement and participation by the members of the communities concerned; d. Proof required - Proof of Ancestral Domain Claims shall include the testimony of elders or community under oath, and other documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession or occupation of the area since time immemorial by such ICCs/IPs in the concept of owners which shall be any one (1) of the following authentic documents: 1. Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs customs and traditions; 2. Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs political structure and institution; 3. Pictures showing long term occupation such as those of old improvements, burial grounds, sacred places and old villages; 4. Historical accounts, including pacts and agreements concerning boundaries entered into by the ICCs/IPs concerned with other ICCs/IPs; 5. Survey plans and sketch maps; 6. Anthropological data; 7. Genealogical surveys; 8. Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional communal forests and hunting grounds; 9. Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional landmarks such as mountains, rivers, creeks, ridges, hills, terraces and the like; and 10. Write-ups of names and places derived from the native dialect of the community. e. Preparation of Maps - On the basis of such investigation and the findings of fact based thereon, the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP shall prepare a perimeter map, complete with technical descriptions, and a description of the natural features and landmarks embraced therein;

f. Report of Investigation and Other Documents - A complete copy of the preliminary census and a report of investigation, shall be prepared by the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP; g. Notice and Publication - A copy of each document, including a translation in the native language of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be posted in a prominent place therein for at least fifteen (15) days. A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local, provincial and regional offices of the NCIP, and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks to allow other claimants to file opposition thereto within fifteen (15) days from the date of such publication: Provided, That in areas where no such newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will be a valid substitute: Provided, further, That mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both newspaper and radio station are not available; h. Endorsement to NCIP - Within fifteen (15) days from publication, and of the inspection process, the Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare a report to the NCIP endorsing a favorable action upon a claim that is deemed to have sufficient proof. However, if the proof is deemed insufficient, the Ancestral Domains Office shall require the submission of additional evidence: Provided, That the Ancestral Domains Office shall reject any claim that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after inspection and verification: Provided, further, That in case of rejection, the Ancestral Domains Office shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all concerned, containing the grounds for denial. The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP: Provided, furthermore, That in cases where there are conflicting claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the contending parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary resolution of the conflict, without prejudice to its full adjudication according to the selection below. i. Turnover of Areas Within Ancestral Domains Managed by Other Government Agencies - The Chairperson of the NCIP shall certify that the area covered is an ancestral domain. The secretaries of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of the Interior and Local Government, and Department of Justice, the Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, and any other government agency claiming jurisdiction over the area shall be notified thereof. Such notification shall terminate any legal basis for the jurisdiction previously claimed; j. Issuance of CADT - ICCs/IPs whose ancestral domains have been officially delineated and determined by the NCIP shall be issued a CADT in the name of the community concerned, containing a list of all those identified in the census; and k. Registration of CADTs - The NCIP shall register issued certificates of ancestral domain titles and certificates of ancestral lands titles before the Register of Deeds in the place where the property is situated. Section 53. Identification, Delineation and Certification of Ancestral Lands . a. The allocation of lands within any ancestral domain to individual or indigenous corporate (family or clan) claimants shall be left to the ICCs/IPs concerned to decide in accordance with customs and traditions; b. Individual and indigenous corporate claimants of ancestral lands which are not within ancestral domains, may have their claims officially established by filing applications for the identification and delineation of their claims with the Ancestral Domains Office. An individual or recognized head of a family or clan may file such application in his behalf or in behalf of his family or clan, respectively; c. Proofs of such claims shall accompany the application form which shall include the testimony under oath of elders of the community and other documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession or occupation of the areas since time immemorial by the individual or corporate claimants in the concept of owners which shall be any of the authentic documents enumerated under Sec. 52 (d) of this act, including tax declarations and proofs of payment of taxes; d. The Ancestral Domains Office may require from each ancestral claimant the submission of such other documents, Sworn Statements and the like, which in its opinion, may shed light on the veracity of the contents of the application/claim; e. Upon receipt of the applications for delineation and recognition of ancestral land claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the publication of the application and a copy of each document submitted including a translation in the native language of the ICCs/IPs concerned in

a prominent place therein for at least fifteen (15) days. A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local, provincial, and regional offices of the NCIP and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks to allow other claimants to file opposition thereto within fifteen (15) days from the date of such publication: Provided, That in areas where no such newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will be a valid substitute: Provided, further, That mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both newspapers and radio station are not available f. Fifteen (15) days after such publication, the Ancestral Domains Office shall investigate and inspect each application, and if found to be meritorious, shall cause a parcellary survey of the area being claimed. The Ancestral Domains office shall reject any claim that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after inspection and verification. In case of rejection, the Ancestral Domains office shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all concerned, containing the grounds for denial. The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP. In case of conflicting claims among individual or indigenous corporate claimants, the Ancestral domains Office shall cause the contending parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary resolution of the conflict, without prejudice to its full adjudication according to Sec. 62 of this Act. In all proceedings for the identification or delineation of the ancestral domains as herein provided, the Director of Lands shall represent the interest of the Republic of the Philippines; and g. The Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare and submit a report on each and every application surveyed and delineated to the NCIP, which shall, in turn, evaluate or corporate (family or clan) claimant over ancestral lands. Section 54. Fraudulent Claims. - The Ancestral Domains Office may, upon written request from the ICCs/IPs, review existing claims which have been fraudulently acquired by any person or community. Any claim found to be fraudulently acquired by, and issued to, any person or community may be cancelled by the NCIP after due notice and hearing of all parties concerned. Section 55. Communal Rights. - Subject to Section 56 hereof, areas within the ancestral domains, whether delineated or not, shall be presumed to be communally held: Provide, That communal rights under this Act shall not be construed as co-ownership as provided in Republic Act. No. 386, otherwise known as the New Civil Code. Section 56. Existing Property Rights Regimes. - Property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of this Act, shall be recognized and respected. Section 57. Natural Resources within Ancestral Domains. - The ICCs/IPs shall have the priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains. A non-member of the ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years: Provided, That a formal and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow such operation: Provided, finally, That the all extractions shall be used to facilitate the development and improvement of the ancestral domains. Section 58. Environmental Consideration . - Ancestral domains or portion thereof, which are found necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover, or reforestation as determined by the appropriate agencies with the full participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be maintained, managed and developed for such purposes. The ICCs/IPs concerned shall be given the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve such areas with the full and effective assistance of the government agencies. Should the ICCs/IPs decide to transfer the responsibility over the areas, said decision must be made in writing. The consent of the ICCs/IPs should be arrived at in accordance with its customary laws without prejudice to the basic requirement of the existing laws on free and prior informed consent: Provided, That the transfer shall be temporary and will ultimately revert to the ICCs/IPs in accordance with a program for technology transfer: Provided, further, That no ICCs/IPs shall be displaced or relocated for the purpose enumerated under this section without the written consent of the specific persons authorized to give consent. Section 59. Certification Precondition. - all department and other governmental agencies shall henceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing, renewing, or granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into any production-sharing agreement, without prior certification from the NCIP that the area affected does not overlap with any ancestral domain. Such certificate shall only be issued after a field-

based investigation is conducted by the Ancestral Domain Office of the area concerned: Provided, That no certificate shall be issued by the NCIP without the free and prior informed and written consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, further, That no department, government agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation may issue new concession, license, lease, or production sharing agreement while there is pending application CADT: Provided, finally, That the ICCs/IPs shall have the right to stop or suspend, in accordance with this Act, any project that has not satisfied the requirement of this consultation process. Section 60. Exemption from Taxes. - All lands certified to be ancestral domains shall be exempt from real property taxes, specially levies, and other forms of exaction except such portion of the ancestral domains as are actually used for large-scale agriculture, commercial forest plantation and residential purposes and upon titling by other by private person: Provided, that all exactions shall be used to facilitate the development and improvement of the ancestral domains. Section 61. Temporary Requisition Powers. - Prior to the establishment of an institutional surveying capacity whereby it can effectively fulfill its mandate, but in no case beyond three (3) years after its creation, the NCIP is hereby authorized to request the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) survey teams as well as other equally capable private survey teams, through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), to delineate ancestral domain perimeters. The DENR Secretary shall accommodate any such request within one (1) month of its issuance: Provided, That the Memorandum of Agreement shall stipulate, among others, a provision for technology transfer to the NCIP. Section 62. Resolution of Conflicts. - In cases of conflicting interest, where there are adverse claims within the ancestral domains as delineated in the survey plan, and which cannot be resolved, the NCIP shall hear and decide, after notice to the proper parties, the disputes arising from the delineation of such ancestral domains: Provided, That if the dispute is between and/or among ICCs/IPs regarding the traditional boundaries of their respective ancestral domains, customary process shall be followed. The NCIP shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out its adjudicatory functions: Provided, further, That in any decision, order, award or ruling of the NCIP on any ancestral domain dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement and interpretation of this Act may be brought for Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Section 63. Applicable Laws. - Customary laws, traditions and practices of the ICCs/IPs of the land where the conflict arises shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims and ownerships, hereditary succession and settlement of land disputes. Any doubt or ambiguity in the application of laws shall be resolved in favor of the ICCs/IPs. Section 64. Remedial Measures. - Expropriation may be resorted to in the resolution of conflicts of interest following the principle of the "common good". The NCIP shall take appropriate legal action for the cancellation of officially documented titles which were acquired illegally: Provided, That such procedure shall ensure that the rights of possessors in good faith shall be respected: Provided, further, That the action for cancellation shall be initiated within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, finally, That the action for reconveyance shall be a period of ten (10) years in accordance with existing laws. CHAPTER IX JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS Section 65. Primary of Customary Laws and Practices. - When disputes involve ICCs/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute. Section 66. Jurisdiction of the NCIP. - The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs; Provided, however, That no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this purpose, a certification shall be issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a petition with the NCIP. Section 67. Appeals to the Court of Appeals. - Decisions of the NCIP shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review.

Section 68. Execution of Decisions, Awards, Orders. - Upon expiration of the period here provided and no appeal is perfected by any of the contending parties, the Hearing Officer of the NCIP, on its own initiative or upon motion by the prevailing party, shall issue a writ of execution requiring the sheriff or the proper officer to execute final decisions, orders or awards of the Regional Hearing Officer of the NCIP. Section 69. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the NCIP. - The NCIP shall have the power and authority: a. To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases filed before it as well as those pertaining to its internal functions and such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act; b. To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy, issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts, records, agreements and other document of similar nature as may be material to a just determination of the matter under investigation or hearing conducted in pursuance of this Act; c. To hold any person in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties therefor; and d. To enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case pending therefore it which, if not restrained forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case or seriously affect social or economic activity. Section 70. No restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction . - No inferior court of the Philippines shall have the jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the NCIP or any of its duly authorized or designated offices in any case, dispute or controversy to, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains. CHAPTER X ANCESTRAL DOMAINS FUND Section 71. Ancestral Domains Fund. - There is hereby created a special fund, to be known as the Ancestral Domains Fund, an initial amount of the One Hundred thirty million pesos(P130,000,000) to cover compensation for expropriated lands, delineation and development of ancestral domains. An amount of Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000) shall be sourced from the gross income of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) from its lotto operation, Ten millions pesos (P10,000,000) from the gross receipts of the travel tax of the preceding year, the fund of the Social Reform Council intended for survey and delineation of ancestral lands/domains, and such other source as the government may be deem appropriate. Thereafter such amount shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act. Foreign as well as local funds which are made available for the ICCs/IPs through the government of the Philippines shall be coursed through the NCIP. The NCIP may also solicit and receive donations, endowments shall be exempted from income or gift taxes and all other taxes, charges or fees imposed by the government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. CHAPTER XI PENALTIES Section 72. Punishable Acts and Applicable Penalties. - Any person who commits violation of any of the provisions of this Act, such as, but not limited to, authorized and/or unlawful intrusion upon any ancestral lands or domains as stated in Sec. 10, Chapter III, or shall commit any of the prohibited acts mentioned in Sections 21 and 24, Chapter V, Section 33, Chapter VI hereof, shall be punished in accordance with the customary laws of the ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, That no such penalty shall be cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment: Provided, further, That neither shall the death penalty or excessive fines be imposed. This provision shall be without prejudice to the right of any ICCs/IPs to avail of the protection of existing laws. In which case, any person who violates any provision of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment of not less than nine (9) months but not more than twelve (12) years or a fine not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) or both such fine and imprisonment upon the discretion of the court. In addition, he shall be obliged to pay to the ICCs/IPs concerned whatever damage may have been suffered by the latter as a consequence of the unlawful act. Section 73. Persons Subject to Punishment. - If the offender is a juridical person, all officers such as, but not limited to, its president, manager, or head of office responsible for their unlawful act shall be criminally liable therefor, in addition to the cancellation of certificates of their registration and/or license:

Provided, That if the offender is a public official, the penalty shall include perpetual disqualification to hold public office. CHAPTER XII MERGER OF THE OFFICE FOR NORTHERN CULTURAL COMMUNITIES (ONCC) AND THE OFFICE FOR SOUTHERN CULTURAL COMMUNITIES (OSCC) Section 74. Merger of ONCC/OSCC. - The Office for Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC) and the Office of Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC), created under Executive Order Nos. 122-B and 122-C respectively, are hereby merged as organic offices of the NCIP and shall continue to function under a revitalized and strengthened structures to achieve the objectives of the NCIP: Provided, That the positions of Regional Directors and below, are hereby phased-out upon the effectivity of this Act: Provided, further, That officials and employees of the phased-out offices who may be qualified may apply for reappointment with the NCIP and may be given prior rights in the filing up of the newly created positions of NCIP, subject to the qualifications set by the Placement Committee: Provided, furthermore, That in the case where an indigenous person and a non-indigenous person with similar qualifications apply for the same position, priority shall be given to the former. Officers and employees who are to be phased-out as a result of the merger of their offices shall be entitled to gratuity a rate equivalent to one and a half (1 1/2) months salary for every year of continuous and satisfactory service rendered or the equivalent nearest fraction thereof favorable to them on the basis of the highest salary received. If they are already entitled to retirement benefits or the gratuity herein provided. Officers and employees who may be reinstated shall refund such retirement benefits or gratuity received: Provided, finally That absorbed personnel must still meet the qualifications and standards set by the Civil Service and the Placement Committee herein created. Section 75. Transition Period. - The ONCC/OSCC shall have a period of six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act within which to wind up its affairs and to conduct audit of its finances. Section 76. Transfer of Assets/Properties. - All real and personal properties which are vested in, or belonging to, the merged offices as aforestated shall be transferred to the NCIP without further need of conveyance, transfer or assignment and shall be held for the same purpose as they were held by the former offices: Provided, That all contracts, records and documents shall be transferred to the NCIP. All agreements and contracts entered into by the merged offices shall remain in full force and effect unless otherwise terminated, modified or amended by the NCIP. Section 77. Placement Committee. - Subject to rules on government reorganization, a Placement Committee shall be created by the NCIP, in coordination with the Civil Service Commission, which shall assist in the judicious selection and placement of personnel in order that the best qualified and most deserving persons shall be appointed in the reorganized agency. The placement Committee shall be composed of seven (7) commissioners and an ICCs/IPs representative from each of the first and second level employees association in the Offices for Northern and Southern Cultural Communities (ONCC/OSCC), nongovernment organizations (NGOs) who have served the community for at least five (5) years and peoples organizations (POs) with at least five (5) years of existence. They shall be guided by the criteria of retention and appointment to be prepared by the consultative body and by the pertinent provisions of the civil service law. CHAPTER XIII FINAL PROVISIONS Section 78. Special Provision. - The City of Baguio shall remain to be governed by its Chapter and all lands proclaimed as part of its townsite reservation shall remain as such until otherwise reclassified by appropriate legislation: Provided, That prior land rights and titles recognized and/or required through any judicial, administrative or other processes before the effectivity of this Act shall remain valid: Provided, further, That this provision shall not apply to any territory which becomes part of the City of Baguio after the effectivity of this Act. Section 79. Appropriations. - The amount necessary to finance the initial implementation of this Act shall be charged against the current year's appropriation of the ONCC and the OSCC. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for its continued implementation shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act. Section 80. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - Within sixty (60) days immediately after appointment, the NCIP shall issue the necessary rules and regulations, in consultation with the

Committees on National Cultural Communities of the House of Representatives and the Senate, for the effective implementation of this Act. Section 81. Saving Clause. - This Act will not in any manner adversely affect the rights and benefits of the ICCs/IPs under other conventions, recommendations, international treaties, national laws, awards, customs and agreements. Section 82. Separability Clause. - In case any provision of this Act or any portion thereof is declared unconstitutional by a competent court, other provisions shall not be affected thereby. Section 83. Repealing Clause. - Presidential Decree NO. 410, Executive Order Nos. 122-B and 122-C, and all other laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 84. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen days (15) days upon its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved: 29 October 1997. Republic Act No. 8371 October 29, 1997 AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, CREATING A NATIONAL COMMISSION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: : CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997." Section 2. Declaration of State Policies. - The State shall recognize and promote all the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) hereunder enumerated within the framework of the Constitution: a) The State shall recognize and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs within the framework of national unity and development; b)The State shall protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains to ensure their economic, social and cultural well being and shall recognize the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain; c) The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national laws and policies; d) The State shall guarantee that members of the ICCs/IPs regardless of sex, shall equally enjoy the full measure of human rights and freedoms without distinctions or discriminations; e) The State shall take measures, with the participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned, to protect their rights and guarantee respect for their cultural integrity, and to ensure that members of the ICCs/IPs benefit on an equal footing from the rights and opportunities which national laws and regulations grant to other members of the population and f) The State recognizes its obligations to respond to the strong expression of the ICCs/IPs for cultural integrity by assuring maximum ICC/IP participation in the direction of education, health, as well as other services of ICCs/IPs, in order to render such services more responsive to the needs and desires of these communities. Towards these ends, the State shall institute and establish the necessary mechanisms to enforce and guarantee the realization of these rights, taking into consideration their customs, traditions, values, beliefs, their rights to their ancestral domains. CHAPTER II DEFINITION OF TERMS Section 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean: a) Ancestral Domains - Subject to Section 56 hereof, refer to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands,inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held

under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals, corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral land, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which their traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators; b) Ancestral Lands - Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership,continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots; c) Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title - refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of possession and ownership of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral domains identified and delineated in accordance with this law; d) Certificate of Ancestral Lands Title - refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral lands; e) Communal Claims - refer to claims on land, resources and rights thereon, belonging to the whole community within a defined territory f) Customary Laws - refer to a body of written and/or unwritten rules, usages, customs and practices traditionally and continually recognized, accepted and observed by respective ICCs/IPs; g) Free and Prior Informed Consent - as used in this Act shall mean the consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs to; be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the activity, in a language an process understandable to the community; h) Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples - refer to a group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by other, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed customs, tradition and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and culture, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains; i) Indigenous Political Structure - refer to organizational and cultural leadership systems, institutions, relationships, patterns and processed for decision-making and participation, identified by ICCs/IPs such as, but not limited to, Council of Elders, Council of Timuays, Bodong Holder, or any other tribunal or body of similar nature; j) Individual Claims - refer to claims on land and rights thereon which have been devolved to individuals, families and clans including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies and tree lots;

k) National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) - refers to the office created under this Act, which shall be under the Office of the President, and which shall be the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to recognize, protect and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs; l) Native Title - refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest; m) Nongovernment Organization - refers to a private, nonprofit voluntary organization that has been organized primarily for the delivery of various services to the ICCs/IPs and has an established track record for effectiveness and acceptability in the community where it serves; n) People's Organization - refers to a private, nonprofit voluntary organization of members of an ICC/IP which is accepted as representative of such ICCs/IPs; o) Sustainable Traditional Resource Rights - refer to the rights of ICCs/IPs to sustainably use,manage, protect and conserve a) land, air, water, and minerals; b) plants, animals and other organisms; c) collecting, fishing and hunting grounds; d) sacred sites; and e) other areas of economic, ceremonial and aesthetic value in accordance with their indigenous knowledge, beliefs, systems and practices; and p) Time Immemorial - refers to a period of time when as far back as memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner, and utilized a defined territory devolved to them, by operation of customary law or inherited from their ancestors, in accordance with their customs and traditions. CHAPTER III RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL DOMAINS Section 4. Concept of Ancestral Lands/Domains. - Ancestral lands/domains shall include such concepts of territories which cover not only the physical environment but the total environment including the spiritual and cultural bonds to the area which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy and use and to which they have claims of ownership. Section 5. Indigenous Concept of Ownership. - Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the view that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that ancestral domains are the ICC's/IP's private but community property which belongs to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable traditional resource rights. Section 6. Composition of Ancestral Lands/Domains. - Ancestral lands and domains shall consist of all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs as referred under Sec. 3, items (a) and (b) of this Act. Section 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains. - The rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs t their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights shall include: a. Rights of Ownership.- The right to claim ownership over lands, bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them at any time within the domains; b. Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources . - Subject to Section 56 hereof, right to develop, control and use lands and territories traditionally occupied, owned, or used; to manage and conserve natural resources within the territories and uphold the responsibilities for future generations; to benefit and share the profits from allocation and utilization of the natural resources found therein; the right to negotiate the terms and conditions for the exploration of natural resources in the areas for the purpose of ensuring ecological, environmental protection and the conservation measures, pursuant to national and customary laws; the right to an informed and intelligent participation in the formulation and implementation of any project, government or private, that will affect or impact upon the ancestral domains and to receive just and fair compensation for any damages which they sustain as a result of the project; and the right to effective measures by the government to prevent any interfere with, alienation and encroachment upon these rights; c. Right to Stay in the Territories- The right to stay in the territory and not be removed therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free and prior informed consent, nor through any

means other than eminent domain. Where relocation is considered necessary as an exceptional measure, such relocation shall take place only with the free and prior informed consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned and whenever possible, they shall be guaranteed the right to return to their ancestral domains, as soon as the grounds for relocation cease to exist. When such return is not possible, as determined by agreement or through appropriate procedures, ICCs/IPs shall be provided in all possible cases with lands of quality and legal status at least equal to that of the land previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development. Persons thus relocated shall likewise be fully compensated for any resulting loss or injury; d. Right in Case of Displacement. - In case displacement occurs as a result of natural catastrophes, the State shall endeavor to resettle the displaced ICCs/IPs in suitable areas where they can have temporary life support system: Provided, That the displaced ICCs/IPs shall have the right to return to their abandoned lands until such time that the normalcy and safety of such lands shall be determined: Provided, further, That should their ancestral domain cease to exist and normalcy and safety of the previous settlements are not possible, displaced ICCs/IPs shall enjoy security of tenure over lands to which they have been resettled: Provided, furthermore, That basic services and livelihood shall be provided to them to ensure that their needs are adequately addressed: e. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants . - Right to regulate the entry of migrant settlers and organizations into the domains; f. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water. - For this purpose, the ICCs/IPs shall have access to integrated systems for the management of their inland waters and air space; g. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations. - The right to claim parts of the ancestral domains which have been reserved for various purposes, except those reserved and intended for common and public welfare and service; and h. Right to Resolve Conflict. - Right to resolve land conflicts in accordance with customary laws of the area where the land is located, and only in default thereof shall the complaints be submitted to amicable settlement and to the Courts of Justice whenever necessary. Section 8. Rights to Ancestral Lands. - The right of ownership and possession of the ICCs/IPs, to their ancestral lands shall be recognized and protected. a. Right to transfer land/property. - Such right shall include the right to transfer land or property rights to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs, subject to customary laws and traditions of the community concerned. b. Right to Redemption. - In cases where it is shown that the transfer of land/property rights by virtue of any agreement or devise, to a non-member of the concerned ICCs/IPs is tainted by the vitiated consent of the ICCs/IPs,or is transferred for an unconscionable consideration or price, the transferor ICC/IP shall have the right to redeem the same within a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years from the date of transfer. Section 9. Responsibilities of ICCs/IPs to their Ancestral Domains. - ICCs/IPs occupying a duly certified ancestral domain shall have the following responsibilities: a. Maintain Ecological Balance- To preserve, restore, and maintain a balanced ecology in the ancestral domain by protecting the flora and fauna, watershed areas, and other reserves; b. Restore Denuded Areas- To actively initiate, undertake and participate in the reforestation of denuded areas and other development programs and projects subject to just and reasonable remuneration; and c. Observe Laws- To observe and comply with the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations for its effective implementation. Section 10. Unauthorized and Unlawful Intrusion . - Unauthorized and unlawful intrusion upon, or use of any portion of the ancestral domain, or any violation of the rights herein before enumerated, shall be punishable under this law. Furthermore, the Government shall take measures to prevent non-ICCs/IPs from taking advantage of the ICCs/IPs customs or lack of understanding of laws to secure ownership, possession of land belonging to said ICCs/IPs.

Section 11. Recognition of Ancestral Domain Rights. - The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains by virtue of Native Title shall be recognized and respected. Formal recognition, when solicited by ICCs/IPs concerned, shall be embodied in a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which shall recognize the title of the concerned ICCs/IPs over the territories identified and delineated. Section 12. Option to Secure Certificate of Title under Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. - Individual members of cultural communities, with respect to individually-owned ancestral lands who, by themselves or through their predecessors-in -interest, have been in continuous possession and occupation of the same in the concept of owner since the immemorial or for a period of not less than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the approval of this Act and uncontested by the members of the same ICCs/IPs shall have the option to secure title to their ancestral lands under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. For this purpose, said individually-owned ancestral lands, which are agricultural in character and actually used for agricultural, residential, pasture, and tree farming purposes, including those with a slope of eighteen percent (18%) or more, are hereby classified as alienable and disposable agricultural lands. The option granted under this Section shall be exercised within twenty (20) years from the approval of this Act. CHAPTER IV RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNANCE AND EMPOWERMENT Section 13. Self-Governance. - The State recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to self-governance and self-determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and institutions. Consequently, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Section 14. Support for Autonomous Regions. - The State shall continue to strengthen and support the autonomous regions created under the Constitution as they may require or need. The State shall likewise encourage other ICCs/IPs not included or outside Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera to use the form and content of their ways of life as may be compatible with the fundamental rights defined in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and other internationally recognized human rights. Section 15. Justice System, Conflict Resolution Institutions and Peace Building Processes . - The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights. Section 16. Right to Participate in Decision -Making . - ICCs/IPs have the right to participate fully, if they so choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and destinies through procedures determined by them as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous political structures. Consequently, the State shall ensure that the ICCs/IPs shall be given mandatory representation in policy-making bodies and other local legislative councils. Section 17. Right to Determine and Decide Priorities for Development . - The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs, institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or use. They shall participate in the formulation,implementation and evaluation of policies, plans and programs for national, regional and local development which may directly affect them. Section 18. Tribal Barangays. - The ICCs/IPs living in contiguous areas or communities where they form the predominant population but which are located in municipalities, provinces or cities where they do not constitute the majority of the population, may form or constitute a separate barangay in accordance with the Local Government Code on the creation of tribal barangays. Section 19. Role of Peoples Organizations. - The State shall recognize and respect the role of independent ICCs/IPs organizations to enable the ICCs/IPs to pursue and protect their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means. Section 20. Means for Development /Empowerment of ICCs/IPs. - The Government shall establish the means for the full development/empowerment of the ICCs/IPs own institutions and initiatives and, where necessary, provide the resources needed therefor.

CHAPTER V SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS Section 21. Equal Protection and Non-discrimination of ICCs/IPs. - Consistent with the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights including the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and International Human Rights Law, the State shall, with due recognition of their distinct characteristics and identity, accord to the members of the ICCs/IPs the rights, protections and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the citizenry. It shall extend to them the same employment rights, opportunities, basic services, educational and other rights and privileges available to every member of the society. Accordingly, the State shall likewise ensure that the employment of any form of force of coersion against ICCs/IPs shall be dealt with by law. The State shall ensure that the fundamental human rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution and relevant international instruments are guaranteed also to indigenous women. Towards this end, no provision in this Act shall be interpreted so as to result in the diminution of rights and privileges already recognized and accorded to women under existing laws of general application. Section 22. Rights during Armed Conflict. - ICCs/IPs have the right to special protection and security in periods of armed conflict. The State shall observe international standards, in particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, for the protection of civilian populations in circumstances of emergency and armed conflict, and shall not recruit members of the ICCs/IPs against their will into armed forces, and in particular, for the use against other ICCs/IPs; not recruit children of ICCs/IPs into the armed forces under any circumstance; nor force indigenous individuals to abandon their lands, territories and means of subsistence, or relocate them in special centers for military purposes under any discriminatory condition. Section 23. Freedom from Discrimination and Right to Equal Opportunity and Treatment . - It shall be the right of the ICCs/IPs to be free from any form of discrimination, with respect to recruitment and conditions of employment, such that they may enjoy equal opportunities as other occupationally-related benefits, informed of their rights under existing labor legislation and of means available to them for redress, not subject to any coercive recruitment systems, including bonded labor and other forms of debt servitude; and equal treatment in employment for men and women, including the protection from sexual harassment. Towards this end, the State shall within the framework of national laws and regulations, and in cooperation with the ICCs/IPs concerned, adopt special measures to ensure the effective protection with regard to the recruitment and conditions of employment of persons belonging to these communities, to the extent that they are not effectively protected by the laws applicable to workers in general. ICCs/IPs shall have the right to association and freedom for all trade union activities and the right to conclude collective bargaining agreements with employers' conditions. They shall likewise have the right not to be subject to working conditions hazardous to their health, particularly through exposure to pesticides and other toxic substances. Section 24. Unlawful Acts Pertaining to Employment . - It shall be unlawful for any person: a. To discriminate against any ICC/IP with respect to the terms and conditions of employment on account of their descent. Equal remuneration shall be paid to ICC/IP and non-ICC/IP for work of equal value; and b. To deny any ICC/IP employee any right or benefit herein provided for or to discharge them for the purpose of preventing them from enjoying any of the rights or benefits provided under this Act. Section 25. Basic Services. - The ICC/IP have the right to special measures for the immediate, effective and continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions, including in the areas of employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous women, elderly, youth, children and differently-abled persons. Accordingly, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to government 's basic services which shall include, but not limited to water and electrical facilities, education, health and infrastructure. Section 26. Women. - ICC/IP women shall enjoy equal rights and opportunities with men, as regards the social, economic, political and cultural spheres of life. The participation of indigenous women in the

decision-making process in all levels, as well as in the development of society, shall be given due respect and recognition. The State shall provide full access to education, maternal and child care, health and nutrition, and housing services to indigenous women. Vocational, technical, professional and other forms of training shall be provided to enable these women to fully participate in all aspects of social life. As far as possible, the State shall ensure that indigenous women have access to all services in their own languages. Section 27. Children and Youth. - The State shall recognize the vital role of the children and youth of ICCs/IPs in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being. Towards this end, the State shall support all government programs intended for the development and rearing of the children and youth of ICCs/IPs for civic efficiency and establish such mechanisms as may be necessary for the protection of the rights of the indigenous children and youth. Section 28. Integrated System of Education . - The State shall, through the NCIP, provide a complete, adequate and integrated system of education, relevant to the needs of the children and Young people of ICCs/IPs. CHAPTER VI CULTURAL INTEGRITY Section 29. Protection of Indigenous Culture, traditions and institutions . - The state shall respect, recognize and protect the right of the ICCs/IPs to preserve and protect their culture, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies. Section 30. Educational Systems. - The State shall provide equal access to various cultural opportunities to the ICCs/IPs through the educational system, public or cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives without prejudice to their right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions by providing education in their own language, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. Indigenous children/youth shall have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State. Section 31. Recognition of Cultural Diversity. - The State shall endeavor to have the dignity and diversity of the cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations of the ICCs/IPs appropriately reflected in all forms of education, public information and cultural-educational exchange. Consequently, the State shall take effective measures, in consultation with ICCs/IPs concerned, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among ICCs/IPs and all segments of society. Furthermore, the Government shall take effective measures to ensure that Stateowned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. The State shall likewise ensure the participation of appropriate indigenous leaders in schools, communities and international cooperative undertakings like festivals, conferences, seminars and workshops to promote and enhance their distinctive heritage and values. Section 32. Community Intellectual Rights. - ICCs/IPs have the right to practice and revitalize their own cultural traditions and customs. The State shall preserve, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual, religious, and spiritual property taken without their free and prior informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. Section 33. Rights to Religious, Cultural Sites and Ceremonies . - ICCs/IPs shall have the right to manifest, practice, develop teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect and have access to their religious and cultural sites; the right to use and control of ceremonial object; and the right to the repatriation of human remains. Accordingly, the State shall take effective measures, in cooperation with the burial sites, be preserved, respected and protected. To achieve this purpose, it shall be unlawful to: a. Explore, excavate or make diggings on archeological sites of the ICCs/IPs for the purpose of obtaining materials of cultural values without the free and prior informed consent of the community concerned; and b. Deface, remove or otherwise destroy artifacts which are of great importance to the ICCs/IPs for the preservation of their cultural heritage.

Section 34. Right to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices and to Develop own Sciences and Technologies. - ICCs/IPs are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership and control and protection of their cultural and intellectual rights. They shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other genetic resources, seeds, including derivatives of these resources, traditional medicines and health practices, vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literature, designs, and visual and performing arts. Section 35. Access to Biological and Genetic Resources. - Access to biological and genetic resources and to indigenous knowledge related to the conservation, utilization and enhancement of these resources, shall be allowed within ancestral lands and domains of the ICCs/IPs only with a free and prior informed consent of such communities, obtained in accordance with customary laws of the concerned community. Section 36. Sustainable Agro-Technical Development . - The State shall recognize the right of ICCs/IPs to a sustainable agro-technological development and shall formulate and implement programs of action for its effective implementation. The State shall likewise promote the bio-genetic and resource management systems among the ICCs/IPs and shall encourage cooperation among government agencies to ensure the successful sustainable development of ICCs/IPs. Section 37. Funds for Archeological and Historical Sites. - The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to receive from the national government all funds especially earmarked or allocated for the management and preservation of their archeological and historical sites and artifacts with the financial and technical support of the national government agencies. CHAPTER VII NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP) Section 38. National Commission on Indigenous Cultural Communities /Indigenous Peoples (NCCP). - to carry out the policies herein set forth, there shall be created the National Commission on ICCs/IPs (NCIP), which shall be the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being of the ICCs/IPs and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. Section 39. Mandate. - The NCIP shall protect and promote the interest and well-being of the ICCs/IPs with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions. Section 40. Composition. - The NCIP shall be an independent agency under the Office of the President and shall be composed of seven (7) Commissioners belonging to ICCs/IPs, one (1) of whom shall be the Chairperson. The Commissioners shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines from a list of recommendees submitted by authentic ICCs/IPs: Provided, That the seven (7) Commissioners shall be appointed specifically from each of the following ethnographic areas: Region I and the Cordilleras; Region II; the rest of Luzon; Island Groups including Mindoro, Palawan, Romblon, Panay and the rest of the Visayas; Northern and Western Mindanao; Southern and Eastern Mindanao; and Central Mindanao: Provided, That at least two (2) of the seven (7) Commissioners shall be women. Section 41. Qualifications, Tenure, Compensation . - The Chairperson and the six (6) Commissioners must be natural born Filipino citizens, bonafide members of ICCs/IPs as certified by his/her tribe, experienced in ethnic affairs and who have worked for at least ten (10) years with an ICC/IP community and/or any government agency involved in ICC/IP, at least 35 years of age at the time of appointment, and must be of proven honesty and integrity: Provided, That at least two (2) of the seven (7) Commissioners shall be the members of the Philippine Bar: Provided, further, That the members of the NCIP shall hold office for a period of three (3) years, and may be subject to re-appointment for another term: Provided, furthermore, That no person shall serve for more than two (2) terms. Appointment to any vacancy shall only be for the unexpired term of the predecessor and in no case shall a member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity: Provided, finally, That the Chairperson and the Commissioners shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the Salary Standardization Law. Section 42. Removal from Office. - Any member of the NCIP may be removed from office by the President, on his own initiative or upon recommendation by any indigenous community, before the expiration of his term for cause and after complying with due process requirement of law.

Section 43. Appointment of Commissioners. - The President shall appoint the seven (7) Commissioners of the NCIP within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act. Section 44. Powers and Functions. - To accomplish its mandate, the NCIP shall have the following powers, jurisdiction and function: a) To serve as the primary government agency through which ICCs/IPs can seek government assistance and as the medium, thorough which such assistance may be extended; b) To review and assess the conditions of ICCs/IPs including existing laws and policies pertinent thereto and to propose relevant laws and policies to address their role in national development; c) To formulate and implement policies, plans, programs and projects for the economic, social and cultural development of the ICCs/IPs and to monitor the implementation thereof; d) To request and engage the services and support of experts from other agencies of government or employ private experts and consultants as may be required in the pursuit of its objectives; e) To issue certificate of ancestral land/domain title; f) Subject to existing laws, to enter into contracts, agreements, or arrangement, with government or private agencies or entities as may be necessary to attain the objectives of this Act, and subject to the approval of the President, to obtain loans from government lending institutions and other lending institutions to finance its programs; g) To negotiate for funds and to accept grants, donations, gifts and/or properties in whatever form and from whatever source, local and international, subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines, for the benefit of ICCs/IPs and administer the same in accordance with the terms thereof; or in the absence of any condition, in such manner consistent with the interest of ICCs/IPs as well as existing laws; h) To coordinate development programs and projects for the advancement of the ICCs/IPs and to oversee the proper implementation thereof; i) To convene periodic conventions or assemblies of IPs to review, assess as well as propose policies or plans; j) To advise the President of the Philippines on all matters relating to the ICCs/IPs and to submit within sixty (60) days after the close of each calendar year, a report of its operations and achievements; k) To submit to Congress appropriate legislative proposals intended to carry out the policies under this Act; l) To prepare and submit the appropriate budget to the Office of the President; m) To issue appropriate certification as a pre-condition to the grant of permit, lease, grant, or any other similar authority for the disposition, utilization, management and appropriation by any private individual, corporate entity or any government agency, corporation or subdivision thereof on any part or portion of the ancestral domain taking into consideration the consensus approval of the ICCs/IPs concerned; n) To decide all appeals from the decisions and acts of all the various offices within the Commission: o) To promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the implementation of this Act; p) To exercise such other powers and functions as may be directed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines; and q) To represent the Philippine ICCs/IPs in all international conferences and conventions dealing with indigenous peoples and other related concerns. Section 45. Accessibility and Transparency. - Subject to such limitations as may be provided by law or by rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, all official records, documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as research data used as basis for policy development of the Commission shall be made accessible to the public. Section 46. Officers within the NCIP. - The NCIP shall have the following offices which shall be responsible for the implementation of the policies herein after provided:

a. Ancestral Domains Office - The Ancestral Domain Office shall be responsible for the identification, delineation and recognition of ancestral land/domains. It shall also be responsible for the management of ancestral lands/domains in accordance with the master plans as well as the implementation of the ancestral domain rights of the ICCs/IPs as provided in Chapter III of this Act. It shall also issue, upon the free and prior informed consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned, certification prior to the grant of any license, lease or permit for the exploitation of natural resources affecting the interests of ICCs/IPs in protecting the territorial integrity of all ancestral domains. It shall likewise perform such other functions as the Commission may deem appropriate and necessary; b. Office on Policy, Planning and Research - The Office on Policy, Planning and Research shall be responsible for the formulation of appropriate policies and programs for ICCs/IPs such as, but not limited to, the development of a Five-Year Master Plan for the ICCs/IPs. Such plan shall undergo a process such that every five years, the Commission shall endeavor to assess the plan and make ramifications in accordance with the changing situations. The Office shall also undertake the documentation of customary law and shall establish and maintain a Research Center that would serve as a depository of ethnographic information for monitoring, evaluation and policy formulation. It shall assist the legislative branch of the national government in the formulation of appropriate legislation benefiting ICCs/IPs. c. Office of Education, Culture and Health - The Office on Culture, Education and Health shall be responsible for the effective implementation of the education, cultural and related rights as provided in this Act. It shall assist, promote and support community schools, both formal and non-formal, for the benefit of the local indigenous community, especially in areas where existing educational facilities are not accessible to members of the indigenous group. It shall administer all scholarship programs and other educational rights intended for ICC/IP beneficiaries in coordination with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the Commission on Higher Education. It shall undertake, within the limits of available appropriation, a special program which includes language and vocational training, public health and family assistance program and related subjects. It shall also identify ICCs/IPs with potential training in the health profession and encourage and assist them to enroll in schools of medicine, nursing, physical therapy and other allied courses pertaining to the health profession. Towards this end, the NCIP shall deploy a representative in each of the said offices who shall personally perform the foregoing task and who shall receive complaints from the ICCs/IPs and compel action from appropriate agency. It shall also monitor the activities of the National Museum and other similar government agencies generally intended to manage and preserve historical and archeological artifacts of the ICCs /IPs and shall be responsible for the implementation of such other functions as the NCIP may deem appropriate and necessary; d. Office on Socio-Economic Services and Special Concerns - The Office on Socio-Economic Services and Special Concerns shall serve as the Office through which the NCIP shall coordinate with pertinent government agencies specially charged with the implementation of various basic socio-economic services, policies, plans and programs affecting the ICCs/IPs to ensure that the same are properly and directly enjoyed by them. It shall also be responsible for such other functions as the NCIP may deem appropriate and necessary; e. Office of Empowerment and Human Rights - The Office of Empowerment and Human Rights shall ensure that indigenous socio- political, cultural and economic rights are respected and recognized. It shall ensure that capacity building mechanisms are instituted and ICCs/IPs are afforded every opportunity, if they so choose, to participate in all level decision-making. It shall likewise ensure that the basic human rights, and such other rights as the NCIP may determine, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations are protected and promoted; f. Administrative Office - The Administrative Office shall provide the NCIP with economical, efficient and effective services pertaining to personnel, finance, records, equipment, security, supplies, and related services. It shall also administer the Ancestral Domains Fund; and g. Legal Affairs Office - There shall be a Legal Affairs Office which shall advice the NCIP on all legal matters concerning ICCs/IPs and which shall be responsible for providing ICCs/IPs with legal assistance in litigation involving community interest. It shall conduct preliminary

investigation on the basis of complaints filed by the ICCs/IPs against a natural or juridical person believed to have violated ICCs/IPs rights. On the basis of its findings, it shall initiate the filing of appropriate legal or administrative action to the NCIP. Section 47. Other Offices. - The NCIP shall have the power to create additional offices as it may deem necessary subject to existing rules and regulations. Section 48. Regional and Field Offices. - Existing regional and field offices shall remain to function under the strengthened organizational structure of the NCIP. Other field office shall be created wherever appropriate and the staffing pattern thereof shall be determined by the NCIP: Provided, That in provinces where there are ICCs/IPs but without field offices, the NCIP shall establish field offices in said provinces. Section 49. Office of the Executive Director . - The NCIP shall create the Office of the Executive Director which shall serve as its secretariat. The office shall be headed by an Executive Director who shall be appointed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the NCIP on a permanent basis. The staffing pattern of the office shall be determined by the NCIP subject to existing rules and regulations. Section 50. Consultative Body. - A body consisting of the traditional leaders, elders and representatives from the women and youth sectors of the different ICCs/IPs shall be constituted by the NCIP from the time to time to advise it on matters relating to the problems, aspirations and interests of the ICCs/IPs. CHAPTER VIII DELINEATION AND RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS Section 51. Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Domains. - Self-delineation shall be guiding principle in the identification and delineation of ancestral domains. As such, the ICCs/IPs concerned shall have a decisive role in all the activities pertinent thereto. The Sworn Statement of the Elders as to the Scope of the territories and agreements/pacts made with neighboring ICCs/IPs, if any, will be essential to the determination of these traditional territories. The Government shall take the necessary steps to identify lands which the ICCs/IPs concerned traditionally occupy and guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession thereto. Measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the rights of the ICCs/IPs concerned to land which may no longer be exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators. Section 52. Delineation Process. - The identification and delineation of ancestral domains shall be done in accordance with the following procedures: a. Ancestral Domains Delineated Prior to this Act - The provisions hereunder shall not apply to ancestral domains/lands already delineated according to DENR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1993, nor to ancestral lands and domains delineated under any other community/ancestral domain program prior to the enactment of his law. ICCs/IPs enactment of this law shall have the right to apply for the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) over the area without going through the process outlined hereunder; b. Petition for Delineation - The process of delineating a specific perimeter may be initiated by the NCIP with the consent of the ICC/IP concerned, or through a Petition for Delineation filed with the NCIP, by a majority of the members of the ICCs/IPs; c. Delineation Paper - The official delineation of ancestral domain boundaries including census of all community members therein, shall be immediately undertaken by the Ancestral Domains Office upon filing of the application by the ICCs/IPs concerned. Delineation will be done in coordination with the community concerned and shall at all times include genuine involvement and participation by the members of the communities concerned; d. Proof required - Proof of Ancestral Domain Claims shall include the testimony of elders or community under oath, and other documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession or occupation of the area since time immemorial by such ICCs/IPs in the concept of owners which shall be any one (1) of the following authentic documents: 1. Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs customs and traditions; 2. Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs political structure and institution;

3. Pictures showing long term occupation such as those of old improvements, burial grounds, sacred places and old villages; 4. Historical accounts, including pacts and agreements concerning boundaries entered into by the ICCs/IPs concerned with other ICCs/IPs; 5. Survey plans and sketch maps; 6. Anthropological data; 7. Genealogical surveys; 8. Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional communal forests and hunting grounds; 9. Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional landmarks such as mountains, rivers, creeks, ridges, hills, terraces and the like; and 10. Write-ups of names and places derived from the native dialect of the community. e. Preparation of Maps - On the basis of such investigation and the findings of fact based thereon, the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP shall prepare a perimeter map, complete with technical descriptions, and a description of the natural features and landmarks embraced therein; f. Report of Investigation and Other Documents - A complete copy of the preliminary census and a report of investigation, shall be prepared by the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP; g. Notice and Publication - A copy of each document, including a translation in the native language of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be posted in a prominent place therein for at least fifteen (15) days. A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local, provincial and regional offices of the NCIP, and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks to allow other claimants to file opposition thereto within fifteen (15) days from the date of such publication: Provided, That in areas where no such newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will be a valid substitute: Provided, further, That mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both newspaper and radio station are not available; h. Endorsement to NCIP - Within fifteen (15) days from publication, and of the inspection process, the Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare a report to the NCIP endorsing a favorable action upon a claim that is deemed to have sufficient proof. However, if the proof is deemed insufficient, the Ancestral Domains Office shall require the submission of additional evidence: Provided, That the Ancestral Domains Office shall reject any claim that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after inspection and verification: Provided, further, That in case of rejection, the Ancestral Domains Office shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all concerned, containing the grounds for denial. The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP: Provided, furthermore, That in cases where there are conflicting claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the contending parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary resolution of the conflict, without prejudice to its full adjudication according to the selection below. i. Turnover of Areas Within Ancestral Domains Managed by Other Government Agencies - The Chairperson of the NCIP shall certify that the area covered is an ancestral domain. The secretaries of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of the Interior and Local Government, and Department of Justice, the Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, and any other government agency claiming jurisdiction over the area shall be notified thereof. Such notification shall terminate any legal basis for the jurisdiction previously claimed; j. Issuance of CADT - ICCs/IPs whose ancestral domains have been officially delineated and determined by the NCIP shall be issued a CADT in the name of the community concerned, containing a list of all those identified in the census; and k. Registration of CADTs - The NCIP shall register issued certificates of ancestral domain titles and certificates of ancestral lands titles before the Register of Deeds in the place where the property is situated. Section 53. Identification, Delineation and Certification of Ancestral Lands . a. The allocation of lands within any ancestral domain to individual or indigenous corporate (family or clan) claimants shall be left to the ICCs/IPs concerned to decide in accordance with customs and traditions;

b. Individual and indigenous corporate claimants of ancestral lands which are not within ancestral domains, may have their claims officially established by filing applications for the identification and delineation of their claims with the Ancestral Domains Office. An individual or recognized head of a family or clan may file such application in his behalf or in behalf of his family or clan, respectively; c. Proofs of such claims shall accompany the application form which shall include the testimony under oath of elders of the community and other documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession or occupation of the areas since time immemorial by the individual or corporate claimants in the concept of owners which shall be any of the authentic documents enumerated under Sec. 52 (d) of this act, including tax declarations and proofs of payment of taxes; d. The Ancestral Domains Office may require from each ancestral claimant the submission of such other documents, Sworn Statements and the like, which in its opinion, may shed light on the veracity of the contents of the application/claim; e. Upon receipt of the applications for delineation and recognition of ancestral land claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the publication of the application and a copy of each document submitted including a translation in the native language of the ICCs/IPs concerned in a prominent place therein for at least fifteen (15) days. A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local, provincial, and regional offices of the NCIP and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks to allow other claimants to file opposition thereto within fifteen (15) days from the date of such publication: Provided, That in areas where no such newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will be a valid substitute: Provided, further, That mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both newspapers and radio station are not available f. Fifteen (15) days after such publication, the Ancestral Domains Office shall investigate and inspect each application, and if found to be meritorious, shall cause a parcellary survey of the area being claimed. The Ancestral Domains office shall reject any claim that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after inspection and verification. In case of rejection, the Ancestral Domains office shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all concerned, containing the grounds for denial. The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP. In case of conflicting claims among individual or indigenous corporate claimants, the Ancestral domains Office shall cause the contending parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary resolution of the conflict, without prejudice to its full adjudication according to Sec. 62 of this Act. In all proceedings for the identification or delineation of the ancestral domains as herein provided, the Director of Lands shall represent the interest of the Republic of the Philippines; and g. The Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare and submit a report on each and every application surveyed and delineated to the NCIP, which shall, in turn, evaluate or corporate (family or clan) claimant over ancestral lands. Section 54. Fraudulent Claims. - The Ancestral Domains Office may, upon written request from the ICCs/IPs, review existing claims which have been fraudulently acquired by any person or community. Any claim found to be fraudulently acquired by, and issued to, any person or community may be cancelled by the NCIP after due notice and hearing of all parties concerned. Section 55. Communal Rights. - Subject to Section 56 hereof, areas within the ancestral domains, whether delineated or not, shall be presumed to be communally held: Provide, That communal rights under this Act shall not be construed as co-ownership as provided in Republic Act. No. 386, otherwise known as the New Civil Code. Section 56. Existing Property Rights Regimes. - Property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of this Act, shall be recognized and respected. Section 57. Natural Resources within Ancestral Domains. - The ICCs/IPs shall have the priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains. A non-member of the ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years: Provided, That a formal and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow such operation: Provided, finally, That the all extractions shall be used to facilitate the development and improvement of the ancestral domains.

Section 58. Environmental Consideration . - Ancestral domains or portion thereof, which are found necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover, or reforestation as determined by the appropriate agencies with the full participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be maintained, managed and developed for such purposes. The ICCs/IPs concerned shall be given the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve such areas with the full and effective assistance of the government agencies. Should the ICCs/IPs decide to transfer the responsibility over the areas, said decision must be made in writing. The consent of the ICCs/IPs should be arrived at in accordance with its customary laws without prejudice to the basic requirement of the existing laws on free and prior informed consent: Provided, That the transfer shall be temporary and will ultimately revert to the ICCs/IPs in accordance with a program for technology transfer: Provided, further, That no ICCs/IPs shall be displaced or relocated for the purpose enumerated under this section without the written consent of the specific persons authorized to give consent. Section 59. Certification Precondition. - all department and other governmental agencies shall henceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing, renewing, or granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into any production-sharing agreement, without prior certification from the NCIP that the area affected does not overlap with any ancestral domain. Such certificate shall only be issued after a fieldbased investigation is conducted by the Ancestral Domain Office of the area concerned: Provided, That no certificate shall be issued by the NCIP without the free and prior informed and written consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, further, That no department, government agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation may issue new concession, license, lease, or production sharing agreement while there is pending application CADT: Provided, finally, That the ICCs/IPs shall have the right to stop or suspend, in accordance with this Act, any project that has not satisfied the requirement of this consultation process. Section 60. Exemption from Taxes. - All lands certified to be ancestral domains shall be exempt from real property taxes, specially levies, and other forms of exaction except such portion of the ancestral domains as are actually used for large-scale agriculture, commercial forest plantation and residential purposes and upon titling by other by private person: Provided, that all exactions shall be used to facilitate the development and improvement of the ancestral domains. Section 61. Temporary Requisition Powers. - Prior to the establishment of an institutional surveying capacity whereby it can effectively fulfill its mandate, but in no case beyond three (3) years after its creation, the NCIP is hereby authorized to request the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) survey teams as well as other equally capable private survey teams, through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), to delineate ancestral domain perimeters. The DENR Secretary shall accommodate any such request within one (1) month of its issuance: Provided, That the Memorandum of Agreement shall stipulate, among others, a provision for technology transfer to the NCIP. Section 62. Resolution of Conflicts. - In cases of conflicting interest, where there are adverse claims within the ancestral domains as delineated in the survey plan, and which cannot be resolved, the NCIP shall hear and decide, after notice to the proper parties, the disputes arising from the delineation of such ancestral domains: Provided, That if the dispute is between and/or among ICCs/IPs regarding the traditional boundaries of their respective ancestral domains, customary process shall be followed. The NCIP shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out its adjudicatory functions: Provided, further, That in any decision, order, award or ruling of the NCIP on any ancestral domain dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement and interpretation of this Act may be brought for Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Section 63. Applicable Laws. - Customary laws, traditions and practices of the ICCs/IPs of the land where the conflict arises shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims and ownerships, hereditary succession and settlement of land disputes. Any doubt or ambiguity in the application of laws shall be resolved in favor of the ICCs/IPs. Section 64. Remedial Measures. - Expropriation may be resorted to in the resolution of conflicts of interest following the principle of the "common good". The NCIP shall take appropriate legal action for the cancellation of officially documented titles which were acquired illegally: Provided, That such procedure shall ensure that the rights of possessors in good faith shall be respected: Provided, further, That the action for cancellation shall be initiated within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act:

Provided, finally, That the action for reconveyance shall be a period of ten (10) years in accordance with existing laws. CHAPTER IX JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS Section 65. Primary of Customary Laws and Practices. - When disputes involve ICCs/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute. Section 66. Jurisdiction of the NCIP. - The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs; Provided, however, That no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this purpose, a certification shall be issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a petition with the NCIP. Section 67. Appeals to the Court of Appeals. - Decisions of the NCIP shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review. Section 68. Execution of Decisions, Awards, Orders. - Upon expiration of the period here provided and no appeal is perfected by any of the contending parties, the Hearing Officer of the NCIP, on its own initiative or upon motion by the prevailing party, shall issue a writ of execution requiring the sheriff or the proper officer to execute final decisions, orders or awards of the Regional Hearing Officer of the NCIP. Section 69. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the NCIP. - The NCIP shall have the power and authority: a. To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases filed before it as well as those pertaining to its internal functions and such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act; b. To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy, issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts, records, agreements and other document of similar nature as may be material to a just determination of the matter under investigation or hearing conducted in pursuance of this Act; c. To hold any person in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties therefor; and d. To enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case pending therefore it which, if not restrained forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case or seriously affect social or economic activity. Section 70. No restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction . - No inferior court of the Philippines shall have the jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the NCIP or any of its duly authorized or designated offices in any case, dispute or controversy to, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains. CHAPTER X ANCESTRAL DOMAINS FUND Section 71. Ancestral Domains Fund. - There is hereby created a special fund, to be known as the Ancestral Domains Fund, an initial amount of the One Hundred thirty million pesos(P130,000,000) to cover compensation for expropriated lands, delineation and development of ancestral domains. An amount of Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000) shall be sourced from the gross income of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) from its lotto operation, Ten millions pesos (P10,000,000) from the gross receipts of the travel tax of the preceding year, the fund of the Social Reform Council intended for survey and delineation of ancestral lands/domains, and such other source as the government may be deem appropriate. Thereafter such amount shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act. Foreign as well as local funds which are made available for the ICCs/IPs through the government of the Philippines shall be coursed through the NCIP. The NCIP may also solicit and receive donations, endowments shall be exempted from income or gift taxes and all other taxes, charges or fees imposed by the government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. CHAPTER XI PENALTIES Section 72. Punishable Acts and Applicable Penalties. - Any person who commits violation of any of the provisions of this Act, such as, but not limited to, authorized and/or unlawful intrusion upon any

ancestral lands or domains as stated in Sec. 10, Chapter III, or shall commit any of the prohibited acts mentioned in Sections 21 and 24, Chapter V, Section 33, Chapter VI hereof, shall be punished in accordance with the customary laws of the ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, That no such penalty shall be cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment: Provided, further, That neither shall the death penalty or excessive fines be imposed. This provision shall be without prejudice to the right of any ICCs/IPs to avail of the protection of existing laws. In which case, any person who violates any provision of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment of not less than nine (9) months but not more than twelve (12) years or a fine not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) or both such fine and imprisonment upon the discretion of the court. In addition, he shall be obliged to pay to the ICCs/IPs concerned whatever damage may have been suffered by the latter as a consequence of the unlawful act. Section 73. Persons Subject to Punishment. - If the offender is a juridical person, all officers such as, but not limited to, its president, manager, or head of office responsible for their unlawful act shall be criminally liable therefor, in addition to the cancellation of certificates of their registration and/or license: Provided, That if the offender is a public official, the penalty shall include perpetual disqualification to hold public office. CHAPTER XII MERGER OF THE OFFICE FOR NORTHERN CULTURAL COMMUNITIES (ONCC) AND THE OFFICE FOR SOUTHERN CULTURAL COMMUNITIES (OSCC) Section 74. Merger of ONCC/OSCC. - The Office for Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC) and the Office of Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC), created under Executive Order Nos. 122-B and 122-C respectively, are hereby merged as organic offices of the NCIP and shall continue to function under a revitalized and strengthened structures to achieve the objectives of the NCIP: Provided, That the positions of Regional Directors and below, are hereby phased-out upon the effectivity of this Act: Provided, further, That officials and employees of the phased-out offices who may be qualified may apply for reappointment with the NCIP and may be given prior rights in the filing up of the newly created positions of NCIP, subject to the qualifications set by the Placement Committee: Provided, furthermore, That in the case where an indigenous person and a non-indigenous person with similar qualifications apply for the same position, priority shall be given to the former. Officers and employees who are to be phased-out as a result of the merger of their offices shall be entitled to gratuity a rate equivalent to one and a half (1 1/2) months salary for every year of continuous and satisfactory service rendered or the equivalent nearest fraction thereof favorable to them on the basis of the highest salary received. If they are already entitled to retirement benefits or the gratuity herein provided. Officers and employees who may be reinstated shall refund such retirement benefits or gratuity received: Provided, finally That absorbed personnel must still meet the qualifications and standards set by the Civil Service and the Placement Committee herein created. Section 75. Transition Period. - The ONCC/OSCC shall have a period of six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act within which to wind up its affairs and to conduct audit of its finances. Section 76. Transfer of Assets/Properties. - All real and personal properties which are vested in, or belonging to, the merged offices as aforestated shall be transferred to the NCIP without further need of conveyance, transfer or assignment and shall be held for the same purpose as they were held by the former offices: Provided, That all contracts, records and documents shall be transferred to the NCIP. All agreements and contracts entered into by the merged offices shall remain in full force and effect unless otherwise terminated, modified or amended by the NCIP. Section 77. Placement Committee. - Subject to rules on government reorganization, a Placement Committee shall be created by the NCIP, in coordination with the Civil Service Commission, which shall assist in the judicious selection and placement of personnel in order that the best qualified and most deserving persons shall be appointed in the reorganized agency. The placement Committee shall be composed of seven (7) commissioners and an ICCs/IPs representative from each of the first and second level employees association in the Offices for Northern and Southern Cultural Communities (ONCC/OSCC), nongovernment organizations (NGOs) who have served the community for at least five (5) years and peoples organizations (POs) with at least five (5) years of existence. They shall be guided by the criteria of retention and appointment to be prepared by the consultative body and by the pertinent provisions of the civil service law.

CHAPTER XIII FINAL PROVISIONS Section 78. Special Provision. - The City of Baguio shall remain to be governed by its Chapter and all lands proclaimed as part of its townsite reservation shall remain as such until otherwise reclassified by appropriate legislation: Provided, That prior land rights and titles recognized and/or required through any judicial, administrative or other processes before the effectivity of this Act shall remain valid: Provided, further, That this provision shall not apply to any territory which becomes part of the City of Baguio after the effectivity of this Act. Section 79. Appropriations. - The amount necessary to finance the initial implementation of this Act shall be charged against the current year's appropriation of the ONCC and the OSCC. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for its continued implementation shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act. Section 80. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - Within sixty (60) days immediately after appointment, the NCIP shall issue the necessary rules and regulations, in consultation with the Committees on National Cultural Communities of the House of Representatives and the Senate, for the effective implementation of this Act. Section 81. Saving Clause. - This Act will not in any manner adversely affect the rights and benefits of the ICCs/IPs under other conventions, recommendations, international treaties, national laws, awards, customs and agreements. Section 82. Separability Clause. - In case any provision of this Act or any portion thereof is declared unconstitutional by a competent court, other provisions shall not be affected thereby. Section 83. Repealing Clause. - Presidential Decree NO. 410, Executive Order Nos. 122-B and 122-C, and all other laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 84. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen days (15) days upon its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved: 29 October 1997. Primer on Ancestral Lands and Ancestral Domains

lPrimer on Ancestral Lands and Ancestral Domains

One of the bigger issues for the past couple of days is the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on Ancestral Domain (for the Bangsamoro People in certain parts of Mindanao) between the Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court assailing the validity of the MOA, so we could not really discuss it. Lets have a general discussion on ancestral lands and ancestral domains. Is there a Constitutional basis for ancestral domains? Yes. Section 5 of Article XII of the Constitution provides: The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being. The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.

Is there any law which covers ancestral domains? Yes. Under Republic Act No. 8371, also known as The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, the State recognizes and promotes certain rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) within the framework of the Constitution. What is Ancestral Domain? It refers to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators. It is subject to property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of R.A. 8371. What is Ancestral Land? It refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots. It is also subject to property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of R.A. 8371. What are the rights to Ancestral Domain? Certain rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains are recognized and protected, including the right: 1. Of ownership. This includes lands, bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them at any time within the domains. 2. To develop, control and use lands and natural resources. This includes the right to negotiate the terms and conditions for the exploration of natural resources in the areas for the purpose of ensuring ecological, environmental protection and the conservation measures, pursuant to national and customary laws. 3. To stay in the territories. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free and prior informed consent, nor through any means other than eminent domain. 4. To regulate entry of migrants. ICCs/IPs have the right to regulate the entry of migrant settlers and organizations into the domains.

5. To claim parts of ancestral domains previously reserved for various purposes, except those reserved and intended for common and public welfare and service. 6. To resolve land conflicts in accordance primarily with customary law. Who has priority over natural resources within ancestral domains? The ICCs/IPs shall have priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains. A non-member of the ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years, provided that a formal and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow such operation. Do the ICCs/IPs have the righ to self-governance? Yes. ICCs/IPs have the inherent right to selfgovernance and self-determination. The State respects the integrity of their values, practices and institutions. The State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities and as be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights. Are lands lands certified to be ancestral domains covered by real estate taxes? These lands are exempt from real property taxes, special levies, and other forms of exaction except such portion of the ancestral domains as are actually used for large-scale agriculture, commercial forest plantation and residential purposes or upon titling by private persons. What are the applicable laws? Customary laws, traditions and practices of the ICCs/IPs of the land where the conflict arises shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims and ownerships, hereditary succession and settlement of land disputes. Any doubt or ambiguity in the application and interpretation of laws shall be resolved in favor of the ICCs/IPs. What is the process of delineation of ancestral domains? The identification and delineation of ancestral domains shall be done in accordance with the following general procedure: a. Petition for delineation. The process of delineating a specific perimeter may be initiated by the National Commission on Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) with the consent of the ICC/IP concerned, or through a Petition for Delineation filed with the NCIP, by a majority of the members of the ICCs/IPs. b. Delineation proper. The official delineation of ancestral domain boundaries including census of all community members therein, shall be immediately undertaken by the Ancestral Domains Office upon filing of the application by the ICCs/IPs concerned. c. Preparation of maps. On the basis of such investigation and the findings of fact based thereon, the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP shall prepare a perimeter map, complete with technical descriptions, and a description of the natural features and landmarks embraced therein.

d. Report of investigation and other documents. A complete copy of the preliminary census and a report of investigation, shall be prepared by the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP. e. Notice and publication. A copy of each document, including a translation in the native language of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be posted in a prominent place therein for at least 15 days. A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local, provincial and regional offices of the NCIP, and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for 2 consecutive weeks to allow other claimants to file opposition thereto within 15 days from date of such publication. In areas where no such newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will be a valid substitute. Mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both newspaper and radio station are not available. f. Endorsement to NCIP. Within 15 days from publication, and of the inspection process, the Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare a report to the NCIP endorsing a favorable action upon a claim that is deemed to have sufficient proof. However, if the proof is deemed insufficient, the Ancestral Domains Office shall require the submission of additional evidence. The Ancestral Domains Office shall reject any claim that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after inspection and verification. g. Issuance of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). ICCs/IPs whose ancestral domains have been officially delineated and determined by the NCIP shall be issued a CADT in the name of the community concerned, containing a list of all those identified in the census. h. Registration of CADTs. The NCIP shall register issued certificates of ancestral domain titles and certificates of ancestral lands titles before the Register of Deeds in the place where the property is situated. What are not covered by this process? The delineanation process shall not apply to ancestral domains/lands already delineated according to DENR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1993, nor to ancestral lands and domains delineated under any other community/ancestral domain program prior to the enactment of R.A. 8371. ICCs/IPs whose ancestral lands/ domains were officially delineated prior to the enactment of the law shall have the right to apply for the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) over the area without going through the process.

Going Beyond The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) In The Philippines, Legal Rights And Natural Resources Center/ Friends Of The Earth-Philippines Ana Rhia T. Muhi and Judith Pamela A. Pasimio Legal Overview of Philippine Indigenous Peoples Rights Throughout Philippine history, the political attitude towards indigenous peoples and their rights have undergone many changes. During the colonial period, from 1521, indigenous peoples who were not assimilated into Christianity were then called and identified as the non-Christian[1] or savage tribes, [2] and thus are the less enlightened minorities of our population[3].

Since the declaration of Philippine independence in 1898, it was only in the 1973 Constitution[4] where indigenous peoples found their place in the countrys national framework. The provision in the Philippine Constitution was intended to authorize special treatment of those Filipinos comprising the cultural minorities in the country. The clear intent, in the context of the Constitution viewed in its entirety, is to create an exception to uniformity of treatment under law mandated under the standard of equal protection of the laws.[5] The policy of the Government was to integrate into the mainstream of Philippine society certain ethnic groups who seek full integration into the larger community, and at the same time protect the rights of those who wish to preserve their original lifeways beside that larger community.[6] The ratification of the 1987 Constitution saw the change in government policy from one of integration to recognition of indigenous peoples rights. As a matter of policy, the State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development.[7] To this end, the State shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being.[8] The recognition of IP rights are, however, subject to national development policies and programs.[9] One policy that the Philippines had not changed since its 1935 Constitution is the so-called Regalian Doctrine. Under this doctrine, all lands of the public domains, and 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.[10] This legal doctrine recalls the time when all titles were valid only when it could be shown that it originated from a grant or sale from the Crown, or its conceptual heir, the State. Thus, even in those rare cases where indigenous peoples communities have managed to secure documents of title to their lands, they do not, by virtue of that title acquire ownership or control of the natural resources found within the titled land. This problem is further complicated by the fact that the governments awards of resource rights through licenses, leases or permits, or current production sharing, joint-venture or co-production agreements are given to persons, natural or juridical, who are not residents of the area, thereby setting the stage for social conflict at the community level.[11] The declaration of ownership of the State of all lands of the public domain and all natural resources, from the 1935 to the 1987 Constitution could not mean absolute ownership simply by operation of law, as this would place such State in direct contradiction to the guarantee of due process as against actual owners, as interpreted in Cario.[12] Thus, despite ancestral domains being now understood as including natural resources, the application of the laws and the interpretation of the 1987 Constitution have limited the indigenous peoples ownership of these natural resources to mere preferential rights to exploit, develop and use.[13] Thus, the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Cario v. Insular Government[14] in 1909 was a breakthrough in the recognition of indigenous peoples rights to their ancestral domains. The Cario doctrine stated that when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land. Yet, despite this pronouncement, the struggle to gain recognition and respect for indigenous peoples rights has been long and arduous and sometimes, even fatal. To date, there is no accurate count of the number of the indigenous peoples in the Philippines. The standard percentage that is being used to estimate is 10% of the over-all population. A possible basis for this 10% is the census of 1915 conducted by the US colonial government, which was published in 1916.

In this document, the counts of the population described as tribos independientes infieles and the like constituted around 10% of the total population in the Philippines at that time.[15] The government uses pecentage higher than 10% (13%-15%), though there is no clear basis of this percentaging as well. This is a clear indication of the level of serious interest the government has in identifying the Indigenous Peoples, and the lack of programmatic approach in identifying the various forms of discrimination they experience the lack of basic services and appropriate economic development projects, the overlapping of almost two-thirds of extractive projects with ancestral territories, and the state of poverty of indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples are also victims of continuous and systematic human rights violations, including community displacement, torture and extrajudicial killings. Over generations, the indigenous peoples have been engaged in various forms of struggles organizing into community organizations, to national formations representing different indigenous communities; there were groups who were part of the armed struggle, there were intense international solidarity work, and there were those who engaged the government and got involved in policy advocacy work. There were groups, the Indigenous Peoples groups and the advocates, who were strategically involved in all of these forms of struggle, at different levels and intensity. The struggle to have a law that recognized indigenous peoples rights to their lands was not an easy one. At first, the draft law that was submitted to Congress sought to remove from the public and private commercial domain the lands of indigenous peoples. At that time, different indigenous organizations were consulted. The dictator Marcos was just overthrown, and it was under the Presidency of Corazon Aquino when the draft law was first submitted. While the draft was still pending, an administrative order was issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources that recognized claims by communities, and thus, their territories were delineated from other lands. The Promises of IPRA In 1997, after ten years of lobbying and campaigning, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) was passed by the Philippine Congress. The IPRA was meant to be a corrective legislation, meaning, it sought to address historical injustices perpetuated against indigenous peoples, and thus contained four significant aspects: (1) the articulation of the recognition of the right to self-governance; (2) the recognition of the bundle of rights held by indigenous peoples, (3) the establishment of a process for the formal recognition of land rights through the introduction of the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) or Certificate Ancestral Land Title (CALT); and, (4) the establishment of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the agency mandated to protect the interest of indigenous peoples. The IPRA more importantly, translated and applied into law the Supreme Courts decision in Carino and the recognized the legality of native titles. Expanding this list, IPRA therefore provided, first, the articulation of numerous rights that should be afforded to indigenous peoples, which includes: 1.right of ownership over land and natural resources;

2.right to develop lands and natural resources; 3.right to stay in territories; 4.right in case of displacement; 5.right to regulate the entry of migrants; 6.right to safe and clean air and water; 7.right to claim parts of reservations; 8.right to resolve conflicts; 9.right of redemption; 10. freedom from discrimination in labor; 11. freedom from conflict, and many more. This list of rights, as well as other rights found in different laws, have been used by communities and non-government organizations to protect indigenous peoples rights from encroachment. In this way, IPRA was a sentry that delayed or hampered the entry of unwanted projects into ancestral territories. IPRA was also the only legislation that specifically provided for the right of indigenous peoples to determine their own development, even if there was a qualification in the 1987 Constitution that such development of communities must be in accordance with national development. The law specifically states The State recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to self-governance and self-determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and institutions. Consequently, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Ideally, this would mean that indigenous peoples do not only have the power to participate in decision-making processes of the State, but going beyond that, they themselves have the power to determine the fates of their territories and their lives. Another introduction of the IPRA that remains to be used as a strategy to secure land security is the establishment of a formal system that will recognize ancestral territories. Though in the past land laws in the Philippines, reference is made to the territories of cultural minorities, these laws have always given restrictions on ownership on territories.[16] Some land laws do not even recognize indigenous ownership, instead, considers the land as part of agrarian reform or resettlement reservations. Others would impose limits on the size and expanse of ownership. With IPRA, communities can apply for a formal title that

can be as much as tens of thousands of hectares, as long as the community can prove time immemorial possession. The last, and maybe the most controversial element, of IPRA is the creation of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples or NCIP. The NCIP has the mandate to protect and promote the rights of communities. It has the power to formulate policies and regulations for the proper implementation of IPRA. It was supposed to be an independent agency whose members were representatives of indigenous peoples themselves. It also had the power to determine cases that involved indigenous peoples. The passage of IPRA was indeed historical. It is a progressive law, moving away from the regalian doctrine the state control and ownership of land and other resources. Thus, IPRA received broad support, with a lot of indigenous communities and advocates being hopeful that this law can actually have positive impacts on the lives of the indigenous communities. There were, some, however, who remained cynical and suspect of how this law, a product of long and hard negotiations and compromises, can actually effect meaningful and fundamental changes in the political, economic and social conditions of the indigenous peoples. Challenges In the course of its lifetime, the IPRA has met some very serious challenges, one of which was the contest to its constitutionality filed by a former Supreme Court Justice. A year after its passage, in 1998, Justice Isagani Cruz claimed that the IPRA was contrary to the Regalian Doctrine contained in the Philippine Constitution, specifically because the IPRA states that indigenous peoples own the natural resources found within their territories. The Supreme Court reached a split decision in the case in December 2000. And by virtue of this ruling deadlock, the IPRA remained to be constitutional. It is the position of our organization, however, that it is not IPRA that is at the core of this case. Nor the rights of indigenous peoples, as these rights have not ceased to exist, and are only awaiting societys ability to recognize them. What is on trial was the willingness of the State and its people to finally rid themselves of prejudices and misplaced fears.[17] Aside from this legal challenge, IPRA faces other challenges which can be categorized into two: that at the policy-level, and at the implementation level. At the policy level, government has issued a number of administrative regulations on the implementation of IPRA. As the years pass, we have seen in particular, the executive department systematically watering down the rights of indigenous peoples, especially that of the right to self-determination. Part and parcel of the right to self-determination is the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). Since 1997, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples or NCIP has revised the rules on FPIC twice, with the underlying objective to make the entry of extractive projects easier and faster. The 2006 FPIC Guidelines, for example, was issued to give way to the commitments made under the Mineral Action Plan of the Philippines, facilitating the rapid and easy entry of mining projects in ancestral domains through the so-called harmonization of IPRA with the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. In fact, as of February 2008, almost 60% of projects that have required FPIC were mining projects, thus, making mining a very relevant issue for communities.

The government has even further provided for sub-categories within the indigenous peoples sector that has resulted to more discrimination. FPIC, for example, is not a right that is afforded to all indigenous peoples. Immigrant IPs, by default, are not afforded FPIC, for the simple reason that they cannot claim the land as their ancestral territories. Such is the struggle of the Ifugaos in Didipio, Nueva Vizcaya, when their FPIC was not taken upon the entry of a mining project by the simple fact that they are immigrants. Meanwhile, despite the introduction of the CADT/CALT as mere paper or formal recognition of indigenous right to land, indigenous peoples still suffer from tenurial insecurity. This is partly due to the fact that there is either a real or perceived conflict of land laws and policies, and most often than not, these laws and policies are interpreted in favor of big businesses, the rich, and the powerful despite IPRAs requirement that any doubt or ambiguity in the application of laws shall be resolved in favor of the indigenous communities.[18]. Throughout Philippine history, various land laws were passed that resulted to a systematic taking of ancestral territories. The underlying cause of such laws was to rid government and transnational corporations of communities that were roadblocks to more profit. As Prof. Owen Lynch[19] pointed out, land laws were passed during the American era because, Taft and Worcester were, first and foremost, eager to lure capital into the colony. They believed that this required them to have total control over the allocation of legal rights to natural resources. The key elements of their hidden agenda were to keep the estimates of public land occupants low and ensure that the processes for recognizing and allocating legal rights to land resources were inefficient and bureaucratically cumbersome. Section VI of the PLA (Public Land Act) went even further. It provided the regime with a mechanism for rolling back recognition of private rights granted during the Spanish era for failure to secure proper official records or documents or to comply with necessary conditions [CA 141, Sec. 54, par. 8]. Thus, these laws mandated that failure for communities to register or file a formal claim over these lands would operate as a loss of real rights by virtue of prescription. Ancestral territories were thus, with one stroke of the pen, have been classified as forestlands, protected areas, agricultural lands or mineral lands, depriving communities their right to due process. The strategy employed by our colonizers to take lands of communities has unfortunately been used up until present by the Philippine government. Registration, which is a foreign concept for indigenous peoples, has been unfortunately projected by different groups to be equivalent to land security, when the same has been shown to be seldom true. The Subanons of Mt. Canatuan, in Zamboanga del Norte were among the first communities to be issued a CADT in 2003. The instrument, however, was only registered in 2008. Despite the existence of the CADT, their leaders could not even enter his own lands because of the operations of TVI Resource Development, Inc., the subsidiary of Canadian TVI Pacific Inc. The Subanons have brought their case in 2007 to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination for redress, failing to get any from domestic remedies. The lack or absence of appropriate legal mechanisms for indigenous peoples to regain their lands has also greatly limited the corrective characteristic of IPRA. This is added to the fact that IPRA mandates indigenous peoples to respect vested titles, with the burden of proof to prove otherwise on these poor communities. The struggle for recognition of ancestral domain has been bureaucratized reduced to paper submissions, fulfillment of forms and checklists. Judicial rulings have also glaringly favored the interests of the mineral industry over those of indigenous peoples, which have been labeled as parochial claiming that mining is an industry for the publics

benefit.[20] Customary laws, meanwhile, remain to be at the outskirts of the legal fora, waiting for recognition from the legal community. These are only some of the policy issues that continuously plague indigenous peoples. The implementation of IPRA is altogether a different matter. Government claimed that the constitutional challenge to IPRA greatly delayed the implementation of the law. It uses this reason as an excuse for the numerous criticisms on the delay in the delivery of services and delineation of ancestral territories. For example, ancestral territories are estimated to cover 7.5 million hectares out of the 30 million hectares that make up the Philippines. After eleven years since the passage of IPRA, as of May 2009, only 38% of these territories were delineated, representing 107 CADTs and 207 CALTs. Out of these 107 CADTs, only 24 have been formally registered. It has come to a point that communities themselves have questioned the relevance of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the institution that was created supposedly to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. NCIP has recently been called as inutile and self-serving.[21] Some groups and communities have called for the abolition of the agency because of the real and perceived corruption of some of its officers and workers. It has time and again been criticized as toeing the line of transnational corporations, implementing the law differently in different communities, depending on the demands of these corporations. NCIP, in the cases of the Mangyans in Mindoro and the Subanons of Zamboanga del Norte, among many others, have created non-traditional leadership structures to ensure the entry of mining. The NCIP itself, on one hand, has made it easy for transnational corporations to exploit indigenous communities, while on the other, made it difficult for communities to secure their territories and to access justice. It has issued regulations that are difficult, unwieldy and almost impossible for communities to comply with. The regulations that are supposed to facilitate the enjoyment of communities to their rights are the same ones that hamper and hinder community development. Some of these regulations would include the Rules on Pleadings and Practices, the Delineation of CADTs/CALTs, and the FPIC Guidelines. The NCIP has been shown also to be weak in asserting its political will. As an agency that has been tossed around the bureaucracy for a number of times, first being attached to the Office of the President, then to the Department of Agrarian Reform, then to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, then back again to the Office of the President, it has not proven its integrity and independence on issues that challenge the jurisdiction of other government offices, despite the fact that IPRA has already given primary jurisdiction to the NCIP.[22] These things are all made possible because it is evident in the law that, not only does its implementation depend on the initiatives of the NCIP, but it has made the NCIP a superbody which enjoys not only executive powers, but also quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial as well. The challenges that communities face with regard to the implementation and interpretation of the law comes from the fact that they hold the key to so-called national development. As mentioned earlier, development projects overlap with about 60% of ancestral territories; and, in a country that offers unabashedly its natural resources for investments, it does not wish to compromise the economic

opportunities that foreign investments bring because of something as simple as the free, prior and informed consent. Strategies Despite the weaknesses of the law, civil society has nevertheless tried different strategies to protect the rights of indigenous peoples some of which did not necessarily involve the use of IPRA, but instead, the other spaces for engagement and participation. Change is constant, and therefore, more often than not each situation calls for a different strategy and use of the tools that are available. We have used different strategies to either push for change or protect the rights of communities by maintaining the status quo. We have engaged the local government units, the national government, and the international forum. We have issued statements, position papers and critiques on executive orders. Recently, we have filed a draft law in Congress on the mineral industry to take the place of the current mining law. We have also filed policy-determining cases before the courts to challenge unjust policies and laws. Interestingly enough, though, we have not filed a case that used the IPRA. Movement building remains to be an important component in any advocacy. Thus, we need to network and campaign to maximize the efforts of all the groups concerned. Moving forward What are some of the lessons that we have learned from the passage of IPRA? First, IPRA, though progressive, was far from a perfect law. There are so many community stories which tell the tale of NCIP or the IPRA being used to facilitate the violation of indigenous peoples rights. For some, IPRA became the instrument by which rights were manipulated to suit the demands of the global market for raw materials. The formal processes that IPRA introduced became the same processes that were used to violate indigenous peoples rights while legitimizing the encroachment of big businesses something that has not changed since Spain settled on our lands. This was possible because law is susceptible to as much as many people that would want to interpret it and use it for their benefit. Second, the institution that IPRA created, the NCIP, was not so different from the institutions that it abolished because it was composed of the same people and thus used the same culture of corruption and bureaucracy. Third, the IPRA, though it contained a long list of rights and provisions which sought to protect the rights of the communities, was hardly used in cases before the courts. Instead, other laws were used to challenge violations of indigenous peoples rights. Fourth, the titling and registration of lands sometimes distracted the communities in achieving genuine land security.

Fifth, community cohesion and organization has achieved more ground than the mere passage of the law. We have seen communities assert their rights with or without IPRA, and instead have looked at laws as only part and parcel of the political context. And finally, the advocacy of indigenous peoples rights do not end with the passage of a law. It is a continuous struggle to rid our countries the discrimination introduced by colonizers. It is about changing mindsets and prejudices. For us from the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, we have always seen the law as either a tool of opportunities or challenges and the IPRA is no different from other laws. The law and its implementation, are, after all, influenced by the political, socio-economic context of a country. In the words of Dean Marvic Leonen, one of the founders of the Center, The IPRA, perhaps even if fully implemented, could not be the last word on the recognition of IP rights. Writing and legislating policy has been significant but definitely not enough for the communities that still struggle for genuine recognition, and full and authentic participation. In the end, it is our collective ability to reflect and act on our experiences that will really matter.[23] The IPRA has definitely been used for the good and for the bad by different parties, as is the nature of law. Thus, after more than a decade from the passage of IPRA, it is timely that a comprehensive assessment be made on IPRA. It is imperative that we hear the experiences, reflections and lessons from the communities who actually engaged and used the law in their assertion of rights, as well as from those who have maintained distance from the law and have continued in their struggle for their land, and against encroachment. For us advocates, it is critical at this juncture that we take a deep breath and look how has the law been relevant to the lives of the communities? How has the law been able to correct the historical injustices it meant to address? Or has there been too much hope pinned on a law, when we all know that the passage of IPRA does not automatically translate into justice and change, instead, it is the collective struggle, at the community level all the way at the national level that achieves justice and catalyze fundamental changes in the lives of the indigenous peoples, and in our societies. Thank you. [1] Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Phil. 660) [1919]. [2] Cario v. Insular Govt. supra. [3] Felwa v. Salas, [4] Art. XV, Section 11. The State shall consider the customs, traditions, beliefs, and interests of national cultural communities in the formulation and implementation of state policies. [5] Fernandez, Perfecto. The Legal Recognition and Protection of Interests in Ancestral Lands of Cultural Communities in the Philippines, Human Rights and Ancestral Land: A Source Book, 1983. [6] Section 1, Presidential Decree 1414. [7] Section 22, Art. II, 1987 Constitution. [8] Section 5, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution. [9] Id. [10] Section 1, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution. [11] Gatmaytan, Gus, Land Rights and Land Tenure Situation of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines, Philippine Natural Resources Law Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, August 1992.

[12] A Divided Court: Case Materials from the Constitutional Challenge to the IPRA of 1997, p.14. [13] Section 57, IPRA. [14] 212 U.S. 449 (1909) [15] Interview with Ms. Theresa Guia-Padilla, an anthropologist, ANTHROWATCH, October 15, 2009. [16] Public Land Act of 1919, Public Land Act of 1936, Commonwealth Act No. 141. [17] Of Prejudiced Dispossession (statement of LRC on Cruz petition), 1999. [18] IPRA Sec. 63. Applicable Laws.- Customary laws, traditions and practices of the ICCs/IPs of the land where the conflict arises shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims and ownerships, hereditary succession and settlement of land disputes. [19] Invisible Peoples and a Hidden Agenda: The Origins of Contemporary Philippine Land Laws (19001913), Philippine Law Journal, Vol 63, p. 249-320 (1988). [20] La Bugal-Blaan Tribal Association, Inc. v Ramos, G.R. No. 127882. December 1, 2004, DESAMA, et. al. vs. Gozun et. al, G.R. No. 157882, March 30, 2006 . [21] Civil society organizations under the leadership of the Episcopal Commission on Indigenous Peoples recently disengaged in a FPIC Guidelines review process, citing these reasons for doing the same. [22] Section 55(i) of IPRA. [23] A Study in Political Compromise, Philippine Natural Resources Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2001.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS,1[1] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP, and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, - versus -

G.R. Nos. 171947-48

Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, REYES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BRION, JJ.

CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE LINTAG,

HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, and Promulgated: JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA, Respondents. December 18, 2008 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: The need to address environmental pollution, as a cause of climate change, has of late gained the attention of the international community. Media have finally trained their sights on the ill effects of pollution, the destruction of forests and other critical habitats, oil spills, and the unabated improper disposal of garbage. And rightly so, for the magnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale few ever foresaw and the wound no longer simply heals by itself. 2[2] But amidst hard evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that need bold action, the voice of cynicism, naysayers, and procrastinators can still be heard.

This case turns on government agencies and their officers who, by the nature of their respective offices or by direct statutory command, are tasked to protect and preserve, at the first instance, our internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas polluted by human activities. To most of these agencies and their official complement, the pollution menace does not seem to carry the high national priority it deserves, if their track records are to be the norm. Their cavalier attitude towards solving, if not mitigating, the environmental pollution problem, is a sad commentary on bureaucratic efficiency and commitment.

At the core of the case is the Manila Bay, a place with a proud historic past, once brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for different contact recreation activities, but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse mainly because of the abject official indifference of people and institutions that could have otherwise made a difference.

This case started when, on January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several government

agencies, among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. Raffled to Branch 20 and docketed as Civil Case No. 1851-99 of the RTC, the complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code. This environmental aberration, the complaint stated, stemmed from: x x x [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of omission or commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear and present danger to public health and in the depletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay, [for which reason] ALL defendants must be held jointly and/or solidarily liable and be collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B waters fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation. 3[3] In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of, among others: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Respondents constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology; The Environment Code (PD 1152); The Pollution Control Law (PD 984); The Water Code (PD 1067); The Sanitation Code (PD 856); The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825); The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979); Executive Order No. 192; The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969); Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations; The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and International Law

Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.

The trial of the case started off with a hearing at the Manila Yacht Club followed by an ocular inspection of the Manila Bay. Renato T. Cruz, the Chief of the Water Quality Management Section, Environmental Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), testifying for petitioners, stated that water samples collected from different beaches around the Manila Bay showed that the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from 50,000 to 80,000 most probable

number (MPN)/ml when what DENR Administrative Order No. 34-90 prescribed as a safe level for bathing and other forms of contact recreational activities, or the SB level, is one not exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml. 4[4]

Rebecca de Vera, for Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) and in behalf of other petitioners, testified about the MWSS efforts to reduce pollution along the Manila Bay through the Manila Second Sewerage Project. For its part, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) presented, as part of its evidence, its memorandum circulars on the study being conducted on ship-generated waste treatment and disposal, and its Linis Dagat (Clean the Ocean) project for the cleaning of wastes accumulated or washed to shore.

The RTC Ordered Petitioners to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision 5[5] in favor of respondents. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, finding merit in the complaint, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-government agencies, jointly and solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB classification to make it fit for swimming, skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation. To attain this, defendantagencies, with defendant DENR as the lead agency, are directed, within six (6) months from receipt hereof, to act and perform their respective duties by devising a consolidated, coordinated and concerted scheme of action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the bay. In particular: Defendant MWSS is directed to install, operate and maintain adequate [sewerage] treatment facilities in strategic places under its jurisdiction and increase their capacities. Defendant LWUA, to see to it that the water districts under its wings, provide, construct and operate sewage facilities for the proper disposal of waste. Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in cleaning up Manila Bay, to install, operate and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of toxic and hazardous substances.

Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat the discharge not only of shipgenerated wastes but also of other solid and liquid wastes from docking vessels that contribute to the pollution of the bay. Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and maintain an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal system such as re-use or recycling of wastes. Defendant DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, to revitalize the marine life in Manila Bay and restock its waters with indigenous fish and other aquatic animals. Defendant DBM, to provide and set aside an adequate budget solely for the purpose of cleaning up and rehabilitation of Manila Bay. Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish structures and other nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to the bay. These nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes which eventually end up in Manila Bay. As the construction and engineering arm of the government, DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing debris, such as carcass of sunken vessels, and other non-biodegradable garbage in the bay. Defendant DOH, to closely supervise and monitor the operations of septic and sludge companies and require them to have proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. Defendant DECS, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the people through education the importance of preserving and protecting the environment. Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group, to protect at all costs the Manila Bay from all forms of illegal fishing. No pronouncement as to damages and costs. SO ORDERED. The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), and PPA filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) individual Notices of Appeal which were eventually consolidated and docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 76528.

On the other hand, the DENR, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group, and five other executive departments and agencies filed directly with this Court a petition for review under Rule 45. The Court, in a Resolution of December 9, 2002, sent the said petition to the CA for consolidation with the consolidated appeals of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74944.

Petitioners, before the CA, were one in arguing in the main that the pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. And apart from raising concerns about the lack of funds appropriated for cleaning

purposes, petitioners also asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.

The CA Sustained the RTC

By a Decision6[6] of September 28, 2005, the CA denied petitioners appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the trial courts decision did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing laws. 7[7]

Petitioners are now before this Court praying for the allowance of their Rule 45 petition on the following ground and supporting arguments: THE [CA] DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT HERETOFORE PASSED UPON BY THE HONORABLE COURT, I.E., IT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURTS DECISION DECLARING THAT SECTION 20 OF [PD] 1152 REQUIRES CONCERNED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO REMOVE ALL POLLUTANTS SPILLED AND DISCHARGED IN THE WATER SUCH AS FECAL COLIFORMS. ARGUMENTS I [SECTIONS] 17 AND 20 OF [PD] 1152 RELATE ONLY TO THE CLEANING OF SPECIFIC POLLUTION INCIDENTS AND [DO] NOT COVER CLEANING IN GENERAL II THE CLEANING OR REHABILITATION OF THE MANILA BAY IS NOT A MINISTERIAL ACT OF PETITIONERS THAT CAN BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS. The issues before us are two-fold. First, do Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage a cleanup in general or are they limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution incidents? And second, can petitioners be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay?

On August 12, 2008, the Court conducted and heard the parties on oral arguments.

Our Ruling

We shall first dwell on the propriety of the issuance of mandamus under the premises.

The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by Mandamus Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty. 8[8] A ministerial duty is one that requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. 9[9] It connotes an act in which nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. It is a simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law. 10[10] Mandamus is available to compel action, when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one way or the other.

Petitioners maintain that the MMDAs duty to take measures and maintain adequate solid waste and liquid disposal systems necessarily involves policy evaluation and the exercise of judgment on the part of the agency concerned. They argue that the MMDA, in carrying out its mandate, has to make decisions, including choosing where a landfill should be located by undertaking feasibility studies and cost estimates, all of which entail the exercise of discretion.

10

Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the statutory command is clear and that petitioners duty to comply with and act according to the clear mandate of the law does not require the exercise of discretion. According to respondents, petitioners, the MMDA in particular, are without discretion, for example, to choose which bodies of water they are to clean up, or which discharge or spill they are to contain. By the same token, respondents maintain that petitioners are bereft of discretion on whether or not to alleviate the problem of solid and liquid waste disposal; in other words, it is the MMDAs ministerial duty to attend to such services.

We agree with respondents.

First off, we wish to state that petitioners obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. We said so in Social Justice Society v. Atienza11[11] in which the Court directed the City of Manila to enforce, as a matter of ministerial duty, its Ordinance No. 8027 directing the three big local oil players to cease and desist from operating their business in the so-called Pandacan Terminals within six months from the effectivity of the ordinance. But to illustrate with respect to the instant case, the MMDAs duty to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory imposition. The MMDAs duty in this regard is spelled out in Sec. 3(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7924 creating the MMDA. This section defines and delineates the scope of the MMDAs waste disposal services to include: Solid waste disposal and management which include formulation and implementation of policies, standards, programs and projects for proper and sanitary waste disposal. It shall likewise include the establishment and operation of sanitary land fill and related facilities and the implementation of other alternative programs intended to reduce, reuse and recycle solid waste. (Emphasis added.) The MMDA is duty-bound to comply with Sec. 41 of the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003) which prescribes the minimum criteria for the establishment of sanitary landfills and Sec. 42 which provides the minimum operating requirements that each site operator shall maintain in the operation of a sanitary landfill. Complementing Sec. 41 are Secs. 36 and 37 of RA 9003, 12[12] enjoining the MMDA and local government units, among others, after the effectivity of the law on February 15,

11

2001, from using and operating open dumps for solid waste and disallowing, five years after such effectivity, the use of controlled dumps.

The MMDAs duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set forth not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the power or right given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment or conscience.13[13] A discretionary duty is one that allows a person to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to perform. 14[14] Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-related duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis.

A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: these government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties. Consider:

(1) The DENR, under Executive Order No. (EO) 192, 15[15] is the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the countrys environment and natural resources. Sec. 19 of the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 (RA 9275), on the other hand, designates the DENR as the primary government agency responsible for its enforcement and implementation, more

12

13

14

15

particularly over all aspects of water quality management. On water pollution, the DENR, under the Acts Sec. 19(k), exercises jurisdiction over all aspects of water pollution, determine[s] its location, magnitude, extent, severity, causes and effects and other pertinent information on pollution, and [takes] measures, using available methods and technologies, to prevent and abate such pollution. The DENR, under RA 9275, is also tasked to prepare a National Water Quality Status Report, an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework, and a 10-year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan which is nationwide in scope covering the Manila Bay and adjoining areas. Sec. 19 of RA 9275 provides:

Sec. 19 Lead Agency.The [DENR] shall be the primary government agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Act x x x unless otherwise provided herein. As such, it shall have the following functions, powers and responsibilities: a) Prepare a National Water Quality Status report within twenty-four (24) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That the Department shall thereafter review or revise and publish annually, or as the need arises, said report; Prepare an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework within twelve (12) months following the completion of the status report; Prepare a ten (10) year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan within 12 months following the completion of the framework for each designated water management area. Such action plan shall be reviewed by the water quality management area governing board every five (5) years or as need arises.

b) c)

The DENR has prepared the status report for the period 2001 to 2005 and is in the process of completing the preparation of the Integrated Water Quality Management Framework. 16[16] Within twelve (12) months thereafter, it has to submit a final Water Quality Management Area Action Plan. 17[17] Again, like the MMDA, the DENR should be made to accomplish the tasks assigned to it under RA 9275.

Parenthetically, during the oral arguments, the DENR Secretary manifested that the DENR, with the assistance of and in partnership with various government agencies and non-government organizations, has completed, as of December 2005, the final draft of a comprehensive action plan with

16

17

estimated budget and time frame, denominated as Operation Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy , for the rehabilitation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the Manila Bay.

The completion of the said action plan and even the implementation of some of its phases should more than ever prod the concerned agencies to fast track what are assigned them under existing laws.

(2) The MWSS, under Sec. 3 of RA 6234, 18[18] is vested with jurisdiction, supervision, and control over all waterworks and sewerage systems in the territory comprising what is now the cities of Metro Manila and several towns of the provinces of Rizal and Cavite, and charged with the duty: (g) To construct, maintain, and operate such sanitary sewerages as may necessary for the proper sanitation and other uses of the cities and comprising the System; x x x be towns

(3) The LWUA under PD 198 has the power of supervision and control over local water districts. It can prescribe the minimum standards and regulations for the operations of these districts and shall monitor and evaluate local water standards. The LWUA can direct these districts to construct, operate, and furnish facilities and services for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewerage, waste, and storm water. Additionally, under RA 9275, the LWUA, as attached agency of the DPWH, is tasked with providing sewerage and sanitation facilities, inclusive of the setting up of efficient and safe collection, treatment, and sewage disposal system in the different parts of the country. 19[19] In relation to the instant petition, the LWUA is mandated to provide sewerage and sanitation facilities in Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to prevent pollution in the Manila Bay. (4) The Department of Agriculture (DA), pursuant to the Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292), 20 [20] is designated as the agency tasked to promulgate and enforce all laws and issuances respecting the

18

19

20

conservation and proper utilization of agricultural and fishery resources. Furthermore, the DA, under the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550), is, in coordination with local government units (LGUs) and other concerned sectors, in charge of establishing a monitoring, control, and surveillance system to ensure that fisheries and aquatic resources in Philippine waters are judiciously utilized and managed on a sustainable basis.21[21] Likewise under RA 9275, the DA is charged with coordinating with the PCG and DENR for the enforcement of water quality standards in marine waters. 22[22] More specifically, its Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under Sec. 22(c) of RA 9275 shall primarily be responsible for the prevention and control of water pollution for the development, management, and conservation of the fisheries and aquatic resources.

(5) The DPWH, as the engineering and construction arm of the national government, is tasked under EO 29223[23] to provide integrated planning, design, and construction services for, among others, flood control and water resource development systems in accordance with national development objectives and approved government plans and specifications.

In Metro Manila, however, the MMDA is authorized by Sec. 3(d), RA 7924 to perform metro-wide services relating to flood control and sewerage management which include the formulation and implementation of policies, standards, programs and projects for an integrated flood control, drainage and sewerage system.

On July 9, 2002, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the DPWH and MMDA, whereby MMDA was made the agency primarily responsible for flood control in Metro Manila. For the rest of the country, DPWH shall remain as the implementing agency for flood control services. The mandate of the MMDA and DPWH on flood control and drainage services shall include the removal

21

22

23

of structures, constructions, and encroachments built along rivers, waterways, and esteros (drainages) in violation of RA 7279, PD 1067, and other pertinent laws.

(6) The PCG, in accordance with Sec. 5(p) of PD 601, or the Revised Coast Guard Law of 1974, and Sec. 6 of PD 979, 24[24] or the Marine Pollution Decree of 1976, shall have the primary responsibility of enforcing laws, rules, and regulations governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of the Philippines. It shall promulgate its own rules and regulations in accordance with the national rules and policies set by the National Pollution Control Commission upon consultation with the latter for the effective implementation and enforcement of PD 979. It shall, under Sec. 4 of the law, apprehend violators who: a. discharge, dump x x x harmful substances from or out of any ship, vessel, barge, or any other floating craft, or other man-made structures at sea, by any method, means or manner, into or upon the territorial and inland navigable waters of the Philippines; b. throw, discharge or deposit, dump, or cause, suffer or procure to be thrown, discharged, or deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or other floating craft or vessel of any kind, or from the shore, wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse matter of any kind or description whatever other than that flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state into tributary of any navigable water from which the same shall float or be washed into such navigable water; and c. deposit x x x material of any kind in any place on the bank of any navigable water or on the bank of any tributary of any navigable water, where the same shall be liable to be washed into such navigable water, either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed or increase the level of pollution of such water. (7) When RA 6975 or the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Act of 1990 was signed into law on December 13, 1990, the PNP Maritime Group was tasked to perform all police functions over the Philippine territorial waters and rivers. Under Sec. 86, RA 6975, the police functions of the PCG shall be taken over by the PNP when the latter acquires the capability to perform such functions. Since the PNP Maritime Group has not yet attained the capability to assume and perform the police functions of PCG over marine pollution, the PCG and PNP Maritime Group shall coordinate with regard to the enforcement of laws, rules, and regulations governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of the Philippines. This was made clear in Sec. 124, RA 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, in which both the PCG and PNP Maritime Group were authorized to enforce said law and other fishery laws, rules, and regulations.25[25]

24

(8) In accordance with Sec. 2 of EO 513, the PPA is mandated to establish, develop, regulate, manage and operate a rationalized national port system in support of trade and national development.26[26] Moreover, Sec. 6-c of EO 513 states that the PPA has police authority within the ports administered by it as may be necessary to carry out its powers and functions and attain its purposes and objectives, without prejudice to the exercise of the functions of the Bureau of Customs and other law enforcement bodies within the area. Such police authority shall include the following: xxxx b) To regulate the entry to, exit from, and movement within the port, of persons and vehicles, as well as movement within the port of watercraft. 27[27] Lastly, as a member of the International Marine Organization and a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by MARPOL 73/78, 28[28] the Philippines, through the PPA, must ensure the provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of sewage from the ships docking in Philippine ports. Thus, the PPA is tasked to adopt such measures as are necessary to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators. When the vessels are not docked at ports but within Philippine territorial waters, it is the PCG and PNP Maritime Group that have jurisdiction over said vessels.

25

26

27

28

(9) The MMDA, as earlier indicated, is duty-bound to put up and maintain adequate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal system as well as other alternative garbage disposal systems. It is primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of RA 9003, which would necessary include its penal provisions, within its area of jurisdiction. 29[29]

Among the prohibited acts under Sec. 48, Chapter VI of RA 9003 that are frequently violated are dumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads, canals or esteros, open burning of solid waste, squatting in open dumps and landfills, open dumping, burying of biodegradable or non- biodegradable materials in flood-prone areas, establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in RA 9003, and operation of waste management facilities without an environmental compliance certificate.

Under Sec. 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA 7279), eviction or demolition may be allowed when persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and playgrounds. The MMDA, as lead agency, in coordination with the DPWH, LGUs, and concerned agencies, can dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other pertinent laws along the rivers, waterways, and esteros in Metro Manila. With respect to rivers, waterways, and esteros in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna that discharge wastewater directly or eventually into the Manila Bay, the DILG shall direct the concerned LGUs to implement the demolition and removal of such structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in violation of RA 7279 and other applicable laws in coordination with the DPWH and concerned agencies.

(10) The Department of Health (DOH), under Article 76 of PD 1067 (the Water Code), is tasked to promulgate rules and regulations for the establishment of waste disposal areas that affect the source of a water supply or a reservoir for domestic or municipal use. And under Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the DOH, in coordination with the DENR, DPWH, and other concerned agencies, shall formulate guidelines and standards for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and the establishment and operation of a centralized sewage treatment system. In areas not considered as highly urbanized cities, septage or a mix sewerage-septage management system shall be employed.

29

In accordance with Sec. 7230[30] of PD 856, the Code of Sanitation of the Philippines, and Sec. 5.1.131[31] of Chapter XVII of its implementing rules, the DOH is also ordered to ensure the regulation and monitoring of the proper disposal of wastes by private sludge companies through the strict enforcement of the requirement to obtain an environmental sanitation clearance of sludge collection treatment and disposal before these companies are issued their environmental sanitation permit.

(11) The Department of Education (DepEd), under the Philippine Environment Code (PD 1152), is mandated to integrate subjects on environmental education in its school curricula at all levels. 32[32] Under Sec. 118 of RA 8550, the DepEd, in collaboration with the DA, Commission on Higher Education, and Philippine Information Agency, shall launch and pursue a nationwide educational campaign to promote the development, management, conservation, and proper use of the environment. Under the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003), on the other hand, it is directed to strengthen the integration of environmental concerns in school curricula at all levels, with an emphasis on waste management principles.33[33]

(12) The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is tasked under Sec. 2, Title XVII of the Administrative Code of 1987 to ensure the efficient and sound utilization of government funds and revenues so as to effectively achieve the countrys development objectives. 34[34]

30

31

32

33

34

One of the countrys development objectives is enshrined in RA 9275 or the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004. This law stresses that the State shall pursue a policy of economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection, preservation, and revival of the quality of our fresh, brackish, and marine waters. It also provides that it is the policy of the government, among others, to streamline processes and procedures in the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution mechanisms for the protection of water resources; to promote environmental strategies and use of appropriate economic instruments and of control mechanisms for the protection of water resources; to formulate a holistic national program of water quality management that recognizes that issues related to this management cannot be separated from concerns about water sources and ecological protection, water supply, public health, and quality of life; and to provide a comprehensive management program for water pollution focusing on pollution prevention.

Thus, the DBM shall then endeavor to provide an adequate budget to attain the noble objectives of RA 9275 in line with the countrys development objectives.

All told, the aforementioned enabling laws and issuances are in themselves clear, categorical, and complete as to what are the obligations and mandate of each agency/petitioner under the law. We need not belabor the issue that their tasks include the cleanup of the Manila Bay.

Now, as to the crux of the petition. Do Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code encompass the cleanup of water pollution in general, not just specific pollution incidents?

Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code Include Cleaning in General

The disputed sections are quoted as follows: Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality .Where the quality of water has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage, the government agencies concerned shall take such measures as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the prescribed water quality standards. Section 20. Clean-up Operations.It shall be the responsibility of the polluter to contain, remove and clean-up water pollution incidents at his own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up operations and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged against the persons and/or entities responsible for such pollution.

When the Clean Water Act (RA 9275) took effect, its Sec. 16 on the subject, Cleanup Operations, amended the counterpart provision (Sec. 20) of the Environment Code (PD 1152). Sec. 17 of PD 1152 continues, however, to be operational.

The amendatory Sec. 16 of RA 9275 reads: SEC. 16. Cleanup Operations.Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 15 and 26 hereof, any person who causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies in excess of the applicable and prevailing standards shall be responsible to contain, remove and clean up any pollution incident at his own expense to the extent that the same water bodies have been rendered unfit for utilization and beneficial use: Provided, That in the event emergency cleanup operations are necessary and the polluter fails to immediately undertake the same, the [DENR] in coordination with other government agencies concerned, shall undertake containment, removal and cleanup operations. Expenses incurred in said operations shall be reimbursed by the persons found to have caused such pollution under proper administrative determination x x x. Reimbursements of the cost incurred shall be made to the Water Quality Management Fund or to such other funds where said disbursements were sourced. As may be noted, the amendment to Sec. 20 of the Environment Code is more apparent than real since the amendment, insofar as it is relevant to this case, merely consists in the designation of the DENR as lead agency in the cleanup operations.

Petitioners contend at every turn that Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code concern themselves only with the matter of cleaning up in specific pollution incidents, as opposed to cleanup in general. They aver that the twin provisions would have to be read alongside the succeeding Sec. 62(g) and (h), which defines the terms cleanup operations and accidental spills, as follows: g. h. Clean-up Operations [refer] to activities conducted in removing the pollutants discharged or spilled in water to restore it to pre-spill condition. Accidental Spills [refer] to spills of oil or other hazardous substances in water that result from accidents such as collisions and groundings.

Petitioners proffer the argument that Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 merely direct the government agencies concerned to undertake containment, removal, and cleaning operations of a specific polluted portion or portions of the body of water concerned. They maintain that the application of said Sec. 20 is limited only to water pollution incidents, which are situations that presuppose the occurrence of specific, isolated pollution events requiring the corresponding containment, removal, and cleaning operations. Pushing the point further, they argue that the aforequoted Sec. 62(g) requires cleanup operations to restore the body of water to pre-spill condition, which means that there must have been a specific

incident of either intentional or accidental spillage of oil or other hazardous substances, as mentioned in Sec. 62(h).

As a counterpoint, respondents argue that petitioners erroneously read Sec. 62(g) as delimiting the application of Sec. 20 to the containment, removal, and cleanup operations for accidental spills only. Contrary to petitioners posture, respondents assert that Sec. 62(g), in fact, even expanded the coverage of Sec. 20. Respondents explain that without its Sec. 62(g), PD 1152 may have indeed covered only pollution accumulating from the day-to-day operations of businesses around the Manila Bay and other sources of pollution that slowly accumulated in the bay. Respondents, however, emphasize that Sec. 62(g), far from being a delimiting provision, in fact even enlarged the operational scope of Sec. 20, by including accidental spills as among the water pollution incidents contemplated in Sec. 17 in relation to Sec. 20 of PD 1152.

To respondents, petitioners parochial view on environmental issues, coupled with their narrow reading of their respective mandated roles, has contributed to the worsening water quality of the Manila Bay. Assuming, respondents assert, that petitioners are correct in saying that the cleanup coverage of Sec. 20 of PD 1152 is constricted by the definition of the phrase cleanup operations embodied in Sec. 62(g), Sec. 17 is not hobbled by such limiting definition. As pointed out, the phrases cleanup operations and accidental spills do not appear in said Sec. 17, not even in the chapter where said section is found.

Respondents are correct.

For one thing, said Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the

government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a specific pollution incident, as long as water quality has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage. This section, to stress, commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate, to take such measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water quality standards. In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution incident.

For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as couched, indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific situation in which the pollution is caused by polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the concerned government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters account. Petitioners assertion, that they have to perform cleanup operations in the Manila Bay only when there is a water pollution incident and the erring polluters do not undertake the containment, removal, and cleanup operations, is quite off mark. As earlier discussed, the complementary Sec. 17 of the Environment Code comes into play and the specific duties of the agencies to clean up come in even if there are no pollution incidents staring at them. Petitioners, thus, cannot

plausibly invoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup mandate depends on the happening of a specific pollution incident. In this regard, what the CA said with respect to the impasse over Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 is at once valid as it is practical. The appellate court wrote: PD 1152 aims to introduce a comprehensive program of environmental protection and management. This is better served by making Secs. 17 & 20 of general application rather than limiting them to specific pollution incidents. 35[35]

Granting arguendo that petitioners position thus described vis--vis the implementation of Sec. 20 is correct, they seem to have overlooked the fact that the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is well-nigh impossible to draw the line between a specific and a general pollution incident. And such impossibility extends to pinpointing with reasonable certainty who the polluters are. We note that Sec. 20 of PD 1152 mentions water pollution incidents which may be caused by polluters in the waters of the Manila Bay itself or by polluters in adjoining lands and in water bodies or waterways that empty into the bay. Sec. 16 of RA 9275, on the other hand, specifically adverts to any person who causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies, which may refer to an individual or an establishment that pollutes the land mass near the Manila Bay or the waterways, such that the contaminants eventually end up in the bay. In this situation, the water pollution incidents are so numerous and involve nameless and faceless polluters that they can validly be categorized as beyond the specific pollution incident level.

Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the government agencies concerned are so undermanned that it would be almost impossible to apprehend the numerous polluters of the Manila Bay. It may perhaps not be amiss to say that the apprehension, if any, of the Manila Bay polluters has been few and far between. Hence, practically nobody has been required to contain, remove, or clean up a given water pollution incident. In this kind of setting, it behooves the Government to step in and undertake cleanup operations. Thus, Sec. 16 of RA 9275, previously Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers for all intents and purposes a general cleanup situation.

The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an aspect and the initial stage of the long-term solution. The preservation of the water quality of the bay after the rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase. It is imperative then that the wastes and contaminants found in the rivers, inland bays, and other bodies of water be stopped from reaching the Manila Bay. Otherwise, any cleanup effort would just be a futile, cosmetic exercise, for, in no time at all, the Manila Bay water quality

35

would again deteriorate below the ideal minimum standards set by PD 1152, RA 9275, and other relevant laws. It thus behooves the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus and offices under them on continuing notice about, and to enjoin them to perform, their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the quality of its water to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline describes as continuing mandamus, 36[36] the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. In India, the doctrine of continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution.37[37]

The Court can take judicial notice of the presence of shanties and other unauthorized structures which do not have septic tanks along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the National Capital Region (NCR) (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycuayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and connecting waterways, river banks, and esteros which discharge their waters, with all the accompanying filth, dirt, and garbage, into the major rivers and eventually the Manila Bay. If there is one factor responsible for the pollution of the major river systems and the Manila Bay, these unauthorized structures would be on top of the list. And if the issue of illegal or unauthorized structures is not seriously addressed with sustained resolve, then practically all efforts to cleanse these important bodies of water would be for naught. The DENR Secretary said as much. 38[38]

36

37

38

Giving urgent dimension to the necessity of removing these illegal structures is Art. 51 of PD 1067 or the Water Code, 39[39] which prohibits the building of structures within a given length along banks of rivers and other waterways. Art. 51 reads: The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas , twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins, are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or to build structures of any kind. (Emphasis added.) Judicial notice may likewise be taken of factories and other industrial establishments standing along or near the banks of the Pasig River, other major rivers, and connecting waterways. But while they may not be treated as unauthorized constructions, some of these establishments undoubtedly contribute to the pollution of the Pasig River and waterways. The DILG and the concerned LGUs, have, accordingly, the duty to see to it that non-complying industrial establishments set up, within a reasonable period, the necessary waste water treatment facilities and infrastructure to prevent their industrial discharge, including their sewage waters, from flowing into the Pasig River, other major rivers, and connecting waterways. After such period, non-complying establishments shall be shut down or asked to transfer their operations.

At this juncture, and if only to dramatize the urgency of the need for petitioners-agencies to comply with their statutory tasks, we cite the Asian Development Bank-commissioned study on the garbage problem in Metro Manila, the results of which are embodied in the The Garbage Book. As there reported, the garbage crisis in the metropolitan area is as alarming as it is shocking. Some highlights of the report: 1. As early as 2003, three land-filled dumpsites in Metro Manila - the Payatas, Catmon and Rodriquez dumpsites - generate an alarming quantity of lead and leachate or liquid run-off. Leachate are toxic liquids that flow along the surface and seep into the earth and poison the surface and groundwater that are used for drinking, aquatic life, and the environment. 2. The high level of fecal coliform confirms the presence of a large amount of human waste in the dump sites and surrounding areas, which is presumably generated by households that lack alternatives to sanitation. To say that Manila Bay needs rehabilitation is an understatement.

39

3. Most of the deadly leachate, lead and other dangerous contaminants and possibly strains of pathogens seeps untreated into ground water and runs into the Marikina and Pasig River systems and Manila Bay.40[40] Given the above perspective, sufficient sanitary landfills should now more than ever be established as prescribed by the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003). Particular note should be taken of the blatant violations by some LGUs and possibly the MMDA of Sec. 37, reproduced below: Sec. 37. Prohibition against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid Waste .No open dumps shall be established and operated, nor any practice or disposal of solid waste by any person, including LGUs which [constitute] the use of open dumps for solid waste, be allowed after the effectivity of this Act: Provided, further that no controlled dumps shall be allowed (5) years following the effectivity of this Act . (Emphasis added.) RA 9003 took effect on February 15, 2001 and the adverted grace period of five (5) years which ended on February 21, 2006 has come and gone, but no single sanitary landfill which strictly complies with the prescribed standards under RA 9003 has yet been set up.

In addition, there are rampant and repeated violations of Sec. 48 of RA 9003, like littering, dumping of waste matters in roads, canals, esteros, and other public places, operation of open dumps, open burning of solid waste, and the like. Some sludge companies which do not have proper disposal facilities simply discharge sludge into the Metro Manila sewerage system that ends up in the Manila Bay. Equally unabated are violations of Sec. 27 of RA 9275, which enjoins the pollution of water bodies, groundwater pollution, disposal of infectious wastes from vessels, and unauthorized transport or dumping into sea waters of sewage or solid waste and of Secs. 4 and 102 of RA 8550 which proscribes the introduction by human or machine of substances to the aquatic environment including dumping/disposal of waste and other marine litters, discharge of petroleum or residual products of petroleum of carbonaceous materials/substances [and other] radioactive, noxious or harmful liquid, gaseous or solid substances, from any water, land or air transport or other human-made structure.

In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the Court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations. Indeed, time is of the essence; hence, there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates.

40

The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground, and as a historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters. But the tasks ahead, daunting as they may be, could only be accomplished if those mandated, with the help and cooperation of all civic-minded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and take responsibility. This means that the State, through petitioners, has to take the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay.

The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hoc measures is over. Petitioners must transcend their limitations, real or imaginary, and buckle down to work before the problem at hand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates; they must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay. We are disturbed by petitioners hiding behind two untenable claims: (1) that there ought to be a specific pollution incident before they are required to act; and (2) that the cleanup of the bay is a discretionary duty.

RA 9003 is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted to radically transform and improve waste management. It implements Sec. 16, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, which explicitly provides that the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

So it was that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. the Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications. 41[41] Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28, 2005 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No. 74944 and the September 13, 2002 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No.

41

1851-99 are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS in view of subsequent developments or supervening events in the case. The fallo of the RTC Decision shall now read: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and maintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea waters per Water Classification Tables under DENR Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation. In particular:

(1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENR as the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the countrys environment and natural resources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275, designating the DENR as the primary government agency responsible for its enforcement and implementation, the DENR is directed to fully implement its Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time. It is ordered to call regular coordination meetings with concerned government departments and agencies to ensure the successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in accordance with its indicated completion schedules.

(2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the Administrative Code of 1987 and Sec. 25 of the Local Government Code of 1991,42[42] the DILG, in exercising the Presidents power of general supervision and its duty to promulgate guidelines in establishing waste management programs under Sec. 43 of the Philippine Environment Code (PD 1152), shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, commercial establishments, and private homes along the banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and waterways that eventually discharge water into the Manila Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether they have wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be found, these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros, and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions.

42

(3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275, 43[43] the MWSS is directed to provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time.

(4) Pursuant to RA 9275, 44[44] the LWUA, through the local water districts and in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan where needed at the earliest possible time.

(5) Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550, 45[45] the DA, through the BFAR, is ordered to improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is also directed to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay.

(6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and the PNP Maritime Group, in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550, in coordination with each other, shall apprehend violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.

43

44

45

(7) Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 513 46[46] and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the PPA is ordered to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators.

(8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, in coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and other agencies, shall dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as the principal implementor of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in coordination with the DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other concerned government agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay.

In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within a period of one (1) year from finality of this Decision. On matters within its territorial jurisdiction and in connection with the discharge of its duties on the maintenance of sanitary landfills and like undertakings, it is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective penal provisions of RA 9003, 47[47] Sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and other existing laws on pollution.

(9) The DOH shall, as directed by Art. 76 of PD 1067 and Sec. 8 of RA 9275, within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine if all licensed septic and sludge companies have the proper

46

47

facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. The DOH shall give the companies, if found to be non-complying, a reasonable time within which to set up the necessary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental sanitation clearance.

(10) Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152, 48[48] Sec. 118 of RA 8550, and Sec. 56 of RA 9003, 49[49] the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste management, environmental protection, and like subjects in the school curricula of all levels to inculcate in the minds and hearts of students and, through them, their parents and friends, the importance of their duty toward achieving and maintaining a balanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire Philippine archipelago.

(11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in the General Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the expenses relating to the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the water quality of the Manila Bay, in line with the countrys development objective to attain economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection, preservation, and revival of our marine waters.

(12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line with the principle of continuing mandamus, shall, from finality of this Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision.

No costs.

SO ORDERED. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice WE CONCUR:

48

49

REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

G.R. Nos. 171947-48

February 15, 2011

METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS,1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP, and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, vs. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., DINAH DELA PEA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, and JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA,Respondents. RESOLUTION VELASCO, JR., J.: On December 18, 2008, this Court rendered a Decision in G.R. Nos. 171947-48 ordering petitioners to clean up, rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay in their different capacities. The fallo reads: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28, 2005 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No. 74944 and the September 13, 2002 Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 1851-99 are AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATIONS in view of subsequent developments or supervening events in the case. The fallo of the RTC Decision shall now read: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and maintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea waters per Water Classification Tables under DENR Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation. In particular: (1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENR as the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the countrys environment and natural resources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275, designating the DENR as the primary government agency responsible for its enforcement and implementation, the DENR is directed to fully implement its Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation, restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time. It is ordered to call regular coordination meetings with concerned government departments and agencies to ensure the successful implementation of the aforesaid plan of action in accordance with its indicated completion schedules. (2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the Administrative Code of 1987 and Sec. 25 of the Local Government Code of 1991, the DILG, in exercising the Presidents power of general supervision and its duty to promulgate guidelines in establishing waste management programs under Sec. 43 of the Philippine Environment Code (PD 1152), shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, commercial establishments, and private homes along the banks of the major river systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-TullahanTenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and waterways that

eventually discharge water into the Manila Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine whether they have wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be found, these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying establishments and homes to set up said facilities or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent industrial wastes, sewage water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, waterways, esteros, and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of fines and other sanctions. (3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the MWSS is directed to provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary adequate waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time. (4) Pursuant to RA 9275, the LWUA, through the local water districts and in coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan where needed at the earliest possible time. (5) Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550, the DA, through the BFAR, is ordered to improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is also directed to assist the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan in developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries and aquatic resources in the Manila Bay. (6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and the PNP Maritime Group, in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550, in coordination with each other, shall apprehend violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing laws and regulations designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay. (7) Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 513 and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the PPA is ordered to immediately adopt such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators. (8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and projects for flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, in coordination with the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and other agencies, shall dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the NavotasMalabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as the principal implementor of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the country more particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in coordination with the DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other concerned government agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the MeycauayanMarilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay. In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within a period of one (1) year from finality of this Decision. On matters within its territorial jurisdiction and in connection with the discharge of its duties on the maintenance of sanitary landfills and like undertakings, it is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective

penal provisions of RA 9003, Sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and other existing laws on pollution. (9) The DOH shall, as directed by Art. 76 of PD 1067 and Sec. 8 of RA 9275, within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine if all licensed septic and sludge companies have the proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. The DOH shall give the companies, if found to be non-complying, a reasonable time within which to set up the necessary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental sanitation clearance. (10) Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152, Sec. 118 of RA 8550, and Sec. 56 of RA 9003, the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste management, environmental protection, and like subjects in the school curricula of all levels to inculcate in the minds and hearts of students and, through them, their parents and friends, the importance of their duty toward achieving and maintaining a balanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire Philippine archipelago. (11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in the General Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the expenses relating to the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the water quality of the Manila Bay, in line with the countrys development objective to attain economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection, preservation, and revival of our marine waters. (12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line with the principle of "continuing mandamus," shall, from finality of this Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision. SO ORDERED. The government agencies did not file any motion for reconsideration and the Decision became final in January 2009. The case is now in the execution phase of the final and executory December 18, 2008 Decision. The Manila Bay Advisory Committee was created to receive and evaluate the quarterly progressive reports on the activities undertaken by the agencies in accordance with said decision and to monitor the execution phase. In the absence of specific completion periods, the Committee recommended that time frames be set for the agencies to perform their assigned tasks. This may be viewed as an encroachment over the powers and functions of the Executive Branch headed by the President of the Philippines. This view is misplaced. The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court is simply an exercise of judicial power under Art. VIII of the Constitution, because the execution of the Decision is but an integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court. None of the agencies ever questioned the power of the Court to implement the December 18, 2008 Decision nor has any of them raised the alleged encroachment by the Court over executive functions. While additional activities are required of the agencies like submission of plans of action, data or status reports, these directives are but part and parcel of the execution stage of a final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Section 47 of Rule 39 reads: Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders.The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:

xxxx (c) In any other litigation between the same parties of their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. (Emphasis supplied.) It is clear that the final judgment includes not only what appears upon its face to have been so adjudged but also those matters "actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto." Certainly, any activity that is needed to fully implement a final judgment is necessarily encompassed by said judgment. Moreover, the submission of periodic reports is sanctioned by Secs. 7 and 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases: Sec. 7. Judgment.If warranted, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ of continuing mandamus requiring respondent to perform an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts of the respondent. The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and execution of the judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or the appropriate government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. The petitioner may submit its comments or observations on the execution of the judgment. Sec. 8. Return of the writ.The periodic reports submitted by the respondent detailing compliance with the judgment shall be contained in partial returns of the writ. Upon full satisfaction of the judgment, a final return of the writ shall be made to the court by the respondent. If the court finds that the judgment has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of judgment shall be entered in the court docket. (Emphasis supplied.) With the final and executory judgment in MMDA, the writ of continuing mandamus issued in MMDA means that until petitioner-agencies have shown full compliance with the Courts orders, the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction over them until full execution of the judgment. There being no encroachment over executive functions to speak of, We shall now proceed to the recommendation of the Manila Bay Advisory Committee. Several problems were encountered by the Manila Bay Advisory Committee. 2 An evaluation of the quarterly progressive reports has shown that (1) there are voluminous quarterly progressive reports that are being submitted; (2) petitioner-agencies do not have a uniform manner of reporting their cleanup, rehabilitation and preservation activities; (3) as yet no definite deadlines have been set by petitioner DENR as to petitioner-agencies timeframe for their respective duties; (4) as of June 2010 there has been a change in leadership in both the national and local levels; and (5) some agencies have encountered difficulties in complying with the Courts directives. In order to implement the afore-quoted Decision, certain directives have to be issued by the Court to address the said concerns. Acting on the recommendation of the Manila Bay Advisory Committee, the Court hereby resolves to ORDER the following: (1) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), as lead agency in the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the updated Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy. The DENR is ordered to submit summarized data on the overall quality of Manila Bay waters for all four quarters of 2010 on or before June 30, 2011.

The DENR is further ordered to submit the names and addresses of persons and companies in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan that generate toxic and hazardous waste on or before September 30, 2011. (2) On or before June 30, 2011, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) shall order the Mayors of all cities in Metro Manila; the Governors of Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan; and the Mayors of all the cities and towns in said provinces to inspect all factories, commercial establishments and private homes along the banks of the major river systemssuch as but not limited to the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the National Capital Region (Paranaque-Zapote, Las Pinas) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, and the Laguna De Bayand other minor rivers and waterways within their jurisdiction that eventually discharge water into the Manila Bay and the lands abutting it, to determine if they have wastewater treatment facilities and/or hygienic septic tanks, as prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Said local government unit (LGU) officials are given up to September 30, 2011 to finish the inspection of said establishments and houses. In case of non-compliance, the LGU officials shall take appropriate action to ensure compliance by noncomplying factories, commercial establishments and private homes with said law, rules and regulations requiring the construction or installment of wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks. The aforementioned governors and mayors shall submit to the DILG on or before December 31, 2011 their respective compliance reports which will contain the names and addresses or offices of the owners of all the non-complying factories, commercial establishments and private homes, copy furnished the concerned environmental agency, be it the local DENR office or the Laguna Lake Development Authority. The DILG is required to submit a five-year plan of action that will contain measures intended to ensure compliance of all non-complying factories, commercial establishments, and private homes. On or before June 30, 2011, the DILG and the mayors of all cities in Metro Manila shall consider providing land for the wastewater facilities of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) or its concessionaires (Maynilad and Manila Water, Inc.) within their respective jurisdictions. (3) The MWSS shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the list of areas in Metro Manila, Rizal and Cavite that do not have the necessary wastewater treatment facilities. Within the same period, the concessionaires of the MWSS shall submit their plans and projects for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities in all the aforesaid areas and the completion period for said facilities, which shall not go beyond 2037. On or before June 30, 2011, the MWSS is further required to have its two concessionaires submit a report on the amount collected as sewerage fees in their respective areas of operation as of December 31, 2010. (4) The Local Water Utilities Administration is ordered to submit on or before September 30, 2011 its plan to provide, install, operate and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities in said cities and towns and the completion period for said works, which shall be fully implemented by December 31, 2020. (5) The Department of Agriculture (DA), through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 a report on areas in Manila Bay where marine life has to be restored or improved and the assistance it has extended to the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan in developing the fisheries and aquatic resources in Manila Bay. The report shall contain monitoring data on the marine life in said areas. Within the same period, it shall submit its five-year plan to restore and improve the marine life in Manila Bay, its future activities to assist the aforementioned LGUs for that purpose, and the completion period for said undertakings.

The DA shall submit to the Court on or before September 30, 2011 the baseline data as of September 30, 2010 on the pollution loading into the Manila Bay system from agricultural and livestock sources. (6) The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall incorporate in its quarterly reports the list of violators it has apprehended and the status of their cases. The PPA is further ordered to include in its report the names, make and capacity of the ships that dock in PPA ports. The PPA shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the measures it intends to undertake to implement its compliance with paragraph 7 of the dispositive portion of the MMDA Decision and the completion dates of such measures. The PPA should include in its report the activities of its concessionaire that collects and disposes of the solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes, which shall state the names, make and capacity of the ships serviced by it since August 2003 up to the present date, the dates the ships docked at PPA ports, the number of days the ship was at sea with the corresponding number of passengers and crew per trip, the volume of solid, liquid and other wastes collected from said ships, the treatment undertaken and the disposal site for said wastes. (7) The Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group shall submit on or before June 30, 2011 its fiveyear plan of action on the measures and activities it intends to undertake to apprehend the violators of Republic Act No. (RA) 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 and other pertinent laws, ordinances and regulations to prevent marine pollution in Manila Bay and to ensure the successful prosecution of violators. The Philippine Coast Guard shall likewise submit on or before June 30, 2011 its five-year plan of action on the measures and activities they intend to undertake to apprehend the violators of Presidential Decree No. 979 or the Marine Pollution Decree of 1976 and RA 9993 or the Philippine Coast Guard Law of 2009 and other pertinent laws and regulations to prevent marine pollution in Manila Bay and to ensure the successful prosecution of violators. (8) The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the names and addresses of the informal settlers in Metro Manila who, as of December 31, 2010, own and occupy houses, structures, constructions and other encroachments established or built along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Paraaque-Zapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros, in violation of RA 7279 and other applicable laws. On or before June 30, 2011, the MMDA shall submit its plan for the removal of said informal settlers and the demolition of the aforesaid houses, structures, constructions and encroachments, as well as the completion dates for said activities, which shall be fully implemented not later than December 31, 2015. The MMDA is ordered to submit a status report, within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution, on the establishment of a sanitary landfill facility for Metro Manila in compliance with the standards under RA 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act. On or before June 30, 2011, the MMDA shall submit a report of the location of open and controlled dumps in Metro Manila whose operations are illegal after February 21, 2006,3 pursuant to Secs. 36 and 37 of RA 9003, and its plan for the closure of these open and controlled dumps to be accomplished not later than December 31, 2012. Also, on or before June 30, 2011, the DENR Secretary, as Chairperson of the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC), shall submit a report on the location of all open and controlled dumps in Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan. On or before June 30, 2011, the DENR Secretary, in his capacity as NSWMC Chairperson, shall submit a report on whether or not the following landfills strictly comply with Secs. 41 and 42 of RA 9003 on the establishment and operation of sanitary landfills, to wit: National Capital Region

1. Navotas SLF (PhilEco), Brgy. Tanza (New Site), Navotas City 2. Payatas Controlled Dumpsite, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City Region III 3. Sitio Coral, Brgy. Matictic, Norzagaray, Bulacan 4. Sitio Tiakad, Brgy. San Mateo, Norzagaray, Bulacan 5. Brgy. Minuyan, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan 6. Brgy. Mapalad, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija 7. Sub-zone Kalangitan, Clark Capas, Tarlac Special Economic Zone Region IV-A 8. Kalayaan (Longos), Laguna 9. Brgy. Sto. Nino, San Pablo City, Laguna 10. Brgy. San Antonio (Pilotage SLF), San Pedro, Laguna 11. Morong, Rizal 12. Sitio Lukutan, Brgy. San Isidro, Rodriguez (Montalban), Rizal (ISWIMS) 13. Brgy. Pintong Bukawe, San Mateo, Rizal (SMSLFDC) On or before June 30, 2011, the MMDA and the seventeen (17) LGUs in Metro Manila are ordered to jointly submit a report on the average amount of garbage collected monthly per district in all the cities in Metro Manila from January 2009 up to December 31, 2010 vis--vis the average amount of garbage disposed monthly in landfills and dumpsites. In its quarterly report for the last quarter of 2010 and thereafter, MMDA shall report on the apprehensions for violations of the penal provisions of RA 9003, RA 9275 and other laws on pollution for the said period. On or before June 30, 2011, the DPWH and the LGUs in Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan shall submit the names and addresses of the informal settlers in their respective areas who, as of September 30, 2010, own or occupy houses, structures, constructions, and other encroachments built along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna de Bay, and other rivers, connecting waterways and esteros that discharge wastewater into the Manila Bay, in breach of RA 7279 and other applicable laws. On or before June 30, 2011, the DPWH and the aforesaid LGUs shall jointly submit their plan for the removal of said informal settlers and the demolition of the aforesaid structures, constructions and encroachments, as well as the completion dates for such activities which shall be implemented not later than December 31, 2012. (9) The Department of Health (DOH) shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the names and addresses of the owners of septic and sludge companies including those that do not have the proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. The DOH shall implement rules and regulations on Environmental Sanitation Clearances and shall require companies to procure a license to operate from the DOH. The DOH and DENR-Environmental Management Bureau shall develop a toxic and hazardous waste management system by June 30, 2011 which will implement segregation of hospital/toxic/hazardous wastes and prevent mixing with municipal solid waste.

On or before June 30, 2011, the DOH shall submit a plan of action to ensure that the said companies have proper disposal facilities and the completion dates of compliance.1avvphi1 (10) The Department of Education (DepEd) shall submit to the Court on or before May 31, 2011 a report on the specific subjects on pollution prevention, waste management, environmental protection, environmental laws and the like that it has integrated into the school curricula in all levels for the school year 2011-2012. On or before June 30, 2011, the DepEd shall also submit its plan of action to ensure compliance of all the schools under its supervision with respect to the integration of the aforementioned subjects in the school curricula which shall be fully implemented by June 30, 2012. (11) All the agencies are required to submit their quarterly reports electronically using the forms below. The agencies may add other key performance indicators that they have identified. SO ORDERED. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice See dissenting opinion ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate JusticeI join the dissent of J. Carpio CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate JusticeANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate JusticeTERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate JusticeI join the dissent of J. Carpio ARTURO D. BRION Associate JusticeDIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate JusticeLUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate JusticeMARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate JusticeROBERTO A. ABAD Associate JusticeMARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate JusticeJOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate JusticeJOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate JusticeSee dissenting opinion MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice CE RTIF ICATIO N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

Footnotes

1 Now the Department of Education (DepEd). 2 On February 10, 2009, the Court En Banc approved a resolution creating an Advisory
Committee "that will verify the reports of the government agencies tasked to clean up the Manila Bay." It is composed of two members of the Court and three technical experts: Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Chairperson and ponente of MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Hon. Jose Midas P. Marquez Court Administrator Vice-Chairperson Members/Technical Experts: Dr. Gil S. Jacinto Former Director, UP Marine Science Institute Dr. Elisea G. Gozun Chair of Earth Day Network and Former DENR Secretary

Dr. Antonio G.M. La Via

Former DENR Undersecretary Dean of the Ateneo School of Government

3 Our Decision in Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila

Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 661, 690, states: "RA 9003 took effect on February 15, 2001 and the adverted grace period of five (5) years [in Sec. 37 of RA 9003] which ended on February 21, 2006 has come and gone, but no single sanitary landfill which strictly complies with the prescribed standards under RA 9003 has yet been set up." (Emphasis supplied.) The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO, J.: The Resolution contains the proposed directives of the Manila Bay Advisory Committee to the concerned agencies1 and local government units (LGUs) for the implementation of the 18 December 2008 Decision of the Court in this case. Among the directives stated in the Resolution is for the affected agencies to submit to the Court their plans of action and status reports, thus: The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), as lead agency in the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the updated Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy (OPMBCS);2

The DILG is required to submit a five-year plan of action that will contain measures intended to ensure compliance of all non-complying factories, commercial establishments, and private homes;3 The MWSS shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the list of areas in Metro Manila, Rizal and Cavite that do not have the necessary wastewater treatment facilities. Within the same period, the concessionaires of the MWSS shall submit their plans and projects for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities in all the aforesaid areas and the completion period for said facilities, which shall not go beyond 2020;4 The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the list of cities and towns in Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan that do not have sewerage and sanitation facilities. LWUA is further ordered to submit on or before September 30, 2011 its plan to provide, install, operate and maintain sewerage and sanitation facilities in said cities and towns and the completion period for said works which shall be fully implemented by December 31, 2020;5 The Department of Agriculture (DA), through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 a report on areas in Manila Bay where marine life has to be restored or improved and the assistance it has extended to the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan in developing the fisheries and aquatic resources in Manila Bay. The report shall contain monitoring data on the marine life in said areas. Within the same period, it shall submit its five-year plan to restore and improve the marine life in Manila Bay, its future activities to assist the aforementioned LGUs for that purpose, and the completion period for said undertakings;6 The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) shall incorporate in its quarterly reports the list of violators it has apprehended and the status of their cases. The PPA is further ordered to include in its report the names, make and capacity of the ships that dock in PPA ports. The PPA shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the measures it intends to undertake to implement its compliance with paragraph 7 of the dispositive portion of the MMDA Decision and the completion dates of such measures;7 The Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group shall submit on or before June 30, 2011 its five-year plan of action on the measures and activities they intend to undertake to apprehend the violators of RA 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 and other pertinent laws, ordinances and regulations to prevent marine pollution in Manila Bay and to ensure the successful prosecution of violators;8 The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) shall likewise submit on or before June 30, 2011 its five-year plan of action on the measures and activities they intend to undertake to apprehend the violators of Presidential Decree (PD) 979 or the Marine Pollution Decree of 1976 and RA 9993 or the Philippine Coast Guard Law of 2009 and other pertinent laws and regulations to prevent marine pollution in Manila Bay and to ensure the successful prosecution of violators;9 The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the names and addresses of the informal settlers in Metro Manila who own and occupy houses, structures, constructions and other encroachments established or built in violation of RA 7279 and other applicable laws along the Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (ParaaqueZapote, Las Pias) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting waterways and esteros as of December 31, 2010. On or before the same date, the MMDA shall submit its plan for the removal of said informal settlers and the demolition of the aforesaid houses, structures,

constructions and encroachments, as well as the completion dates for said activities which shall be fully implemented not later than December 31, 2015 ;10 [T]he DPWH and the aforesaid LGUs shall jointly submit its plan for the removal of said informal settlers and the demolition of the aforesaid structures, constructions and encroachments, as well as the completion dates for such activities which shall be implemented not later than December 31, 2012;11 [T]he DOH shall submit a plan of action to ensure that the said companies have proper disposal facilities and the completion dates of compliance ;12 On or before June 30, 2011, the DepEd shall also submit its plan of action to ensure compliance of all the schools under its supervision with respect to the integration of the aforementioned subjects in the school curricula which shall be fully implemented by June 30, 2012 ;13 (Emphasis supplied) What is the purpose of requiring these agencies to submit to the Court their plans of action and status reports? Are these plans to be approved or disapproved by the Court? The Court does not have the competence or even the jurisdiction to evaluate these plans which involves technical matters 14 best left to the expertise of the concerned agencies. The Resolution also requires that the concerned agencies shall " submit [to the Court] their quarterly reports electronically x x x. "15 Thus, the directive for the concerned agencies to submit to the Court their quarterly reports is a continuing obligation which extends even beyond the year 2011.16 The Court is now arrogating unto itself two constitutional powers exclusively vested in the President. First, the Constitution provides that " executive power shall be vested in the President ."17 This means that neither the Judiciary nor the Legislature can exercise executive power for executive power is the exclusive domain of the President. Second, the Constitution provides that the President shall " have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices ."18 Neither the Judiciary nor the Legislature can exercise control or even supervision over executive departments, bureaus, and offices. Clearly, the Resolution constitutes an intrusion of the Judiciary into the exclusive domain of the Executive. In the guise of implementing the 18 December 2008 Decision through the Resolution, the Court is in effect supervising and directing the different government agencies and LGUs concerned. In Noblejas v. Teehankee,19 it was held that the Court cannot be required to exercise administrative functions such as supervision over executive officials. The issue in that case was whether the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the Supreme Court, in view of the conferment upon him by law (Republic Act No. 1151) of the rank and privileges of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. The Court, answering in the negative, stated: To adopt petitioner's theory, therefore, would mean placing upon the Supreme Court the duty of investigating and disciplining all these officials whose functions are plainly executive and the consequent curtailment by mere implication from the Legislative grant, of the President's power to discipline and remove administrative officials who are presidential appointees, and which the Constitution expressly place under the President's supervision and control. xxx But the more fundamental objection to the stand of petitioner Noblejas is that, if the Legislature had really intended to include in the general grant of "privileges" or "rank and privileges of Judges of the Court of First Instance" the right to be investigated by the Supreme Court, and to be suspended or removed only upon recommendation of that Court, then such grant of privilege would be unconstitutional, since it would violate the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers, by charging this court with the administrative function of supervisory control over executive

officials, and simultaneously reducing pro tanto the control of the Chief Executive over such officials.20 (Boldfacing supplied) Likewise, in this case, the directives in the Resolution are administrative in nature and circumvent the constitutional provision which prohibits Supreme Court members from performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Section 12, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides: SEC. 12. The members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Thus, in the case of In Re: Designation of Judge Manzano as Member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice,21 the Court invalidated the designation of a judge as member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice, which was tasked to receive complaints and to make recommendations for the speedy disposition of cases of detainees. The Court held that the committee performs administrative functions22 which are prohibited under Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution. As early as the 1932 case of Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co. ,23 this Court has already emphasized that the Supreme Court should only exercise judicial power and should not assume any duty which does not pertain to the administering of judicial functions. In that case, a petition was filed requesting the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms and the compensation to be paid to Manila Electric Company for the use of right of way. The Court held that it would be improper and illegal for the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, whose decision of a majority shall be final, to act on the petition of Manila Electric Company. The Court explained: We run counter to this dilemma. Either the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, exercise judicial functions, or as members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, exercise administrative or quasi judicial functions. The first case would appear not to fall within the jurisdiction granted the Supreme Court. Even conceding that it does, it would presuppose the right to bring the matter in dispute before the courts, for any other construction would tend to oust the courts of jurisdiction and render the award a nullity. But if this be the proper construction, we would then have the anomaly of a decision by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, taken therefrom to the courts and eventually coming before the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court would review the decision of its members acting as arbitrators. Or in the second case, if the functions performed by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, be considered as administrative or quasi judicial in nature, that would result in the performance of duties which the members of the Supreme Court could not lawfully take it upon themselves to perform. The present petition also furnishes an apt illustration of another anomaly, for we find the Supreme Court as a court asked to determine if the members of the court may be constituted a board of arbitrators, which is not a court at all. The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of the three divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power and judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations by any other department of the government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions.24 Furthermore, the Resolution orders some LGU officials to inspect the establishments and houses along major river banks and to "take appropriate action to ensure compliance by non-complying factories, commercial establishments and private homes with said law, rules and regulations requiring the construction or installment of wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic

tanks."25 The LGU officials are also directed to "submit to the DILG on or before December 31, 2011 their respective compliance reports which shall contain the names and addresses or offices of the owners of all the non-complying factories, commercial establishments and private homes."26 Furthermore, the Resolution mandates that on or before 30 June 2011, the DILG and the mayors of all cities in Metro Manila should "consider providing land for the wastewater facilities of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) or its concessionaires (Maynilad and Manila Water Inc.) within their respective jurisdictions."27 The Court is in effect ordering these LGU officials how to do their job and even gives a deadline for their compliance. Again, this is a usurpation of the power of the President to supervise LGUs under the Constitution and existing laws. Section 4, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that: " The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments x x x."28 Under the Local Government Code of 1991,29 the President exercises general supervision over LGUs, thus: SECTION 25. National Supervision over Local Government Units . - (a) Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the President shall exercise general supervision over local government units to ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to barangays. (Emphasis supplied) The Resolution constitutes judicial overreach by usurping and performing executive functions . The Court must refrain from overstepping its boundaries by taking over the functions of an equal branch of the government the Executive. The Court should abstain from exercising any function which is not strictly judicial in character and is not clearly conferred on it by the Constitution.30 Indeed, as stated by Justice J.B.L. Reyes inNoblejas v. Teehankee,31 "the Supreme Court of the Philippines and its members should not and can not be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administration of judicial functions."32 The directives in the Resolution constitute a judicial encroachment of an executive function which clearly violates the system of separation of powers that inheres in our democratic republican government. The principle of separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government is part of the basic structure of the Philippine Constitution. Thus, the 1987 Constitution provides that: (a) the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines;33 (b) the executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines;34 and (c) the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established.35 Since the Supreme Court is only granted judicial power, it should not attempt to assume or be compelled to perform non-judicial functions.36 Judicial power is defined under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution as that which "includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government." The Resolution contains directives which are outside the ambit of the Court's judicial functions. The principle of separation of powers is explained by the Court in the leading case of Angara v. Electoral Commission:37 The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has

provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. x x x And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other department in its exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.38 Even the ponente is passionate about according respect to the system of separation of powers between the three equal branches of the government. In his dissenting opinion in the 2008 case of Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP),39 Justice Velasco emphatically stated: Separation of Powers to be Guarded Over and above the foregoing considerations, however, is the matter of separation of powers which would likely be disturbed should the Court meander into alien territory of the executive and dictate how the final shape of the peace agreement with the MILF should look like. The system of separation of powers contemplates the division of the functions of government into its three (3) branches: the legislative which is empowered to make laws; the executive which is required to carry out the law; and the judiciary which is charged with interpreting the law. Consequent to actual delineation of power, each branch of government is entitled to be left alone to discharge its duties as it sees fit. Being one such branch, the judiciary, as Justice Laurel asserted in Planas v. Gil, "will neither direct nor restrain executive [or legislative action]." Expressed in another perspective, the system of separated powers is designed to restrain one branch from inappropriate interference in the business, or intruding upon the central prerogatives, of another branch; it is a blend of courtesy and caution, "a self-executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other." x x x Under our constitutional set up, there cannot be any serious dispute that the maintenance of the peace, insuring domestic tranquility and the suppression of violence are the domain and responsibility of the executive. Now then, if it be important to restrict the great departments of government to the exercise of their appointed powers, it follows, as a logical corollary, equally important, that one branch should be left completely independent of the others, independent not in the sense that the three shall not cooperate in the common end of carrying into effect the purposes of the constitution, but in the sense that the acts of each shall never be controlled by or subjected to the influence of either of the branches.40(Emphasis supplied) Indeed, adherence to the principle of separation of powers which is enshrined in our Constitution is essential to prevent tyranny by prohibiting the concentration of the sovereign powers of state in one body.41 Considering that executive power is exclusively vested in the President of the Philippines, the Judiciary should neither undermine such exercise of executive power by the President nor arrogate executive power unto itself. The Judiciary must confine itself to the exercise of judicial functions and not encroach upon the functions of the other branches of the government. ACCORDINGLY, I vote against the approval of the Resolution. ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

DISSENTING OPINION
SERENO, J.:

"The judicial whistle needs to be blown for a purpose and with caution. It needs to be remembered that the Court cannot run the government. The Court has the duty of implementing constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights but they cannot push back the limits of the Constitution to accommodate the challenged violation."1 These are the words of Justice Anand of the Supreme Court of India, from which court the idea of a continuing mandatory injunction for environmental cases was drawn by the Philippine Supreme Court. These words express alarm that the Indian judiciary has already taken on the role of running the government in environmental cases. A similar situation would result in the Philippines were the majority Resolution to be adopted. Despite having the best of intentions to ensure compliance by petitioners with their corresponding statutory mandates in an urgent manner, this Court has unfortunately encroached upon prerogatives solely to be exercised by the President and by Congress. On 18 December 2008, the Court promulgated its decision in MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, denying the petition of the government agencies, defendants in Civil Case No. 1851-99. It held that the Court of Appeals, subject to some modifications, was correct in affirming the 13 September 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 1851-99. It ordered "the abovenamed defendant-government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and maintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea waters per Water Classification Tables under DENR Administrative Order No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation." The Court further issued each of the aforementioned agencies specific orders to comply with their statutory mandate.2 Pursuant to the judgment above, the Court established its own Manila Bay Advisory Committee. Upon the recommendations of the said Committee, the present Resolution was issued. It encompasses several of the specific instructions laid out by the court in the original case, but also goes further by requiring reports and updates from the said government agencies, and setting deadlines for the submission thereof. I find these directives in the Majority Resolution patently irreconcilable with basic constitutional doctrines and with the legislative mechanisms already in place, such as the Administrative Code and the Local Government Code, which explicitly grant control and supervision over these agencies to the President alone, and to no one else. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the Majority Resolution. In issuing these directives, the Court has encroached upon the exclusive authority of the Executive Department and violated the doctrine of Separation of Powers The Resolution assigned the Department of Natural Resources as the primary agency for environment protection and required the implementation of its Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy. It ordered the DENR to submit the updated operational plan directly to the Court; to summarize data on the quality of Manila Bay waters; and to "submit the names and addresses of persons and companiesthat generate toxic or hazardous waste on or before September 30, 2011." The Department of the Interior and Local Government is directed to "order the Mayors of all cities in Metro Manila; the Governors of Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga and Bataan; and the Mayors of all the cities and towns in said provinces to inspect all factories, commercial establishments and private homes along the banks of the major river systems" to determine if they have wastewater treatment facilities, on or before 30 June 2011. The LGUs are given a deadline of 30 September 2011 to finish the inspection. In cooperation with the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), these local governments are required to submit their plan for the removal of informal settlers and encroachments which are in violation of Republic Act No. 7279. The said demolition must take place not later than 31 December 2012.

The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) is required to submit its plans for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities in areas where needed, the completion period for which shall not go beyond the year 2020. On or before 30 June 2011, the MWSS is further required to have its two concessionaires submit a report on the amount collected as sewerage fees. The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) is ordered to submit on or before 30 September 2011 its plan to install and operate sewerage and sanitation facilities in the towns and cities where needed, which must be fully implemented by 31 December 2020. The Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Aquatic Fisheries and Resources are ordered to submit on or before 30 June 2011 a list of areas where marine life in Manila Bay has improved, and the assistance extended to different Local Government Units in this regard. The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) is ordered to report the names, make, and capacity of each ship that would dock in PPA ports; the days they docked and the days they were at sea; the activities of the concessionaire that would collect solid and liquid ship-generated waste, the volume, treatment and disposal sites for such wastes; and the violators that PPA has apprehended. The Department of Health (DOH) is required to submit the names and addresses of septic and sludge companies that have no treatment facilities. The said agency must also require companies to procure a "license to operate" issued by the DOH. The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and the seventeen (17) LGUs in Metro Manila must submit a report on the "amount of garbage collected per districtvis--vis the average amount of garbage disposed monthly in landfills and dumpsites." MMDA must also submit a plan for the removal of informal settlers and encroachments along NCR Rivers which violate R.A. No. 7279. Clearly, the Court has no authority to issue these directives. They fall squarely under the domain of the executive branch of the state. The issuance of specific instructions to subordinate agencies in the implementation of policy mandates in all laws, not just those that protect the environment, is an exercise of the power of supervision and control the sole province of the Office of the President. Both the 1987 Constitution and Executive Order No. 292, or the Administrative Code of the Philippines, state: Exercise of Executive Power. - The Executive power shall be vested in the President.3 Power of Control.- The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.4 In Anak Mindanao Party-list Group v. Executive Secretary,5 this Court has already asserted that the enforcement of all laws is the sole domain of the Executive. The Court pronounced that the express constitutional grant of authority to the Executive is broad and encompassing, such that it justifies reorganization measures6 initiated by the President. The Court said: While Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the President executes the laws. The executive power is vested in the President. It is generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance. As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of control, the President also has the duty of supervising and enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively.

To herein petitioner agencies impleaded below, this Court has given very specific instructions to report the progress and status of their operations directly to the latter. The Court also required the agencies to apprise it of any noncompliance with the standards set forth by different laws as to environment protection. This move is tantamount to making these agencies accountable to the Court instead of the President. The very occupation streamlined especially for the technical and practical expertise of the Executive Branch is being usurped without regard for the delineations of power in the Constitution. In fact, the issuance of the Resolution itself is in direct contravention of the Presidents exclusive power to issue administrative orders, as shown thus: Administrative Orders. - Acts of the President which relate to particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.7 The Courts discussion in Ople v. Torres8 pertaining to the extent and breadth of administrative power bestowed upon the President is apt: Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations. An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. The implementation of the policy laid out by the legislature in the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, the Toxic and Hazardous Waste Act or Republic Act 6969, the Environment Code, and other laws geared towards environment protection is under the competence of the President. Achieved thereby is a uniform standard of administrative efficiency. And since it is through administrative orders promulgated by the President that specific operational aspects for these policies are laid out, the Resolution of this Court overlaps with the Presidents administrative power. No matter how urgent and laudatory the cause of environment protection has become, it cannot but yield to the higher mandate of separation of powers and the mechanisms laid out by the people through the Constitution. One of the directives is that which requires local governments to conduct inspection of homes and establishments along the riverbanks, and to submit a plan for the removal of certain informal settlers. Not content with arrogating unto itself the powers of "control" and "supervision" granted by the Administrative Code to the President over said petitioner administrative agencies, the Court is also violating the latters general supervisory authority over local governments: Sec. 18. General Supervision Over Local Governments. - The President shall exercise general supervision over local governments.9 Sec. 25. National Supervision over Local Government Units.(a) Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the President shall exercise general supervision over local government units to ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.10 The powers expressly vested in any branch of the Government shall not be exercised by, nor delegated to, any other branch of the Government, except to the extent authorized by the Constitution.11 As has often been repeated by this Court, the doctrine of separation of powers is the very wellspring from which the Court draws its legitimacy. Former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno has traced its origin and rationale as inhering in the republican system of government:

The principle of separation of powers prevents the concentration of legislative, executive, and judicial powers to a single branch of government by deftly allocating their exercise to the three branches of government... In his famed treatise, The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu authoritatively analyzed the nature of executive, legislative and judicial powers and with a formidable foresight counselled that any combination of these powers would create a system with an inherent tendency towards tyrannical actions Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and the executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and that of trying the causes of individuals. 12 Nor is there merit in the contention that these directives will speed up the rehabilitation of Manila Bay better than if said rehabilitation were left to the appropriate agencies. Expediency is never a reason to abandon legitimacy. "The Separation of Powers often impairs efficiency, in terms of dispatch and the immediate functioning of government. It is the long-term staying power of government that is enhanced by the mutual accommodation required by the separation of powers."13 Mandamus does not lie to compel a discretionary act. In G.R. Nos. 171947-48, the Court explicitly admitted that "[w]hile the implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus." 14 In denying the appeal of petitioners and affirming the Decision of the RTC, the Court of Appeals stressed that the trial courts Decision did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing laws.15 In its revised Resolution, the Court is now setting deadlines for the implementation of policy formulations which require decision-making by the agencies. It has confused an order enjoining a duty, with an order outliningspecific technical rules on how to perform such a duty. Assuming without conceding that mandamus were availing under Rule 65, the Court can only require a particular action, but it cannot provide for the means to accomplish such action. It is at this point where the demarcation of the general act of "cleaning up the Manila Bay" has become blurred, so much so that the Court now engages in the slippery slope of overseeing technical details. In Sps. Abaga v. Sps. Panes16 the Court said: From the foregoing Rule, there are two situations when a writ of mandamus may issue: (1) when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or (2) when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled. The "duty" mentioned in the first situation is a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty, requiring the exercise of judgmentIn short, for mandamus to lie, the duty sought to be compelled to be performed must be a ministerial duty, not a discretionary duty, and the petitioner must show that he has a well-defined, clear and certain right. Discretion, on the other hand, is a faculty conferred upon a court or official by which he may decide the question either way and still be right.17

The duty being enjoined in mandamus must be one according to the terms defined in the law itself. Thus, the recognized rule is that, in the performance of an official duty or act involving discretion, the corresponding official can only be directed by mandamus to act, but not to act one way or the other. This is the end of any participation by the Court, if it is authorized to participate at all. In setting a deadline for the accomplishment of these directives, not only has the Court provided the means of accomplishing the task required, it has actually gone beyond the standards set by the law. There is nothing in the Environment Code, the Administrative Code, or the Constitution which grants this authority to the judiciary. It is already settled that, "If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide when and how the duty shall be performed, such duty is not ministerial."18 In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources,19 the Court ruled that, As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any manner in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. The Constitution does not authorize the courts to "monitor" the execution of their decisions. It is an oft-repeated rule that the Court has no power to issue advisory opinions, much less "directives" requiring progress reports from the parties respecting the execution of its decisions. The requirements of "actual case or controversy" and "justiciability" have long been established in order to limit the exercise of judicial review. While its dedication to the implementation of the fallo in G.R. 171947-48 is admirable, the Courts power cannot spill over to actual encroachment upon both the "control" and police powers of the State under the guise of a "continuing mandamus." In G.R. 171947-48, the Court said: "Under what other judicial discipline describes as continuing mandamus, the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference." Needless to say, the "continuing mandamus" in this case runs counter to principles of "actual case or controversy" and other requisites for judicial review. In fact, the Supreme Court is in danger of acting as a "super-administrator"20 the scenario presently unfolding in India where the supposed remedy originated. There the remedy was first used in Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India,21 a public interest case for corruption filed against high-level officials. Since then, the remedy has been applied to environmental cases as an oversight and control power by which the Supreme Court of India has created committees (i.e. the Environment Pollution Authority and the Central Empowered Committee in forest cases) and allowed these committees to act as the policing agencies.22 But the most significant judicial intervention in this regard was the series of orders promulgated by the Court in T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India.23 Although the Writ Petition filed by Godavarman was an attempt to seek directions from the Court regarding curbing the illegal felling of trees, the Supreme Court went further to make policy determinations in an attempt to improve the countrys forests. The Court Order suspending felling of trees that did not adhere to state government working plans resulted in effectively freezing the countrys timber industry. The Supreme Court completely banned tree felling in certain north-eastern states to any part of the country. The courts role was even more pronounced in its later directions. While maintaining the ban on felling of trees in the seven northeast states, the court directed the state governments to gather, process, sell, and otherwise manage the already felled timber in the manner its specified the Supreme Court became the supervisor of all forest issues, ranging from controlling, pricing and transport of timber to management of forest revenue, as well as implementation of its orders.24

Thus, while it was originally intended to assert public rights in the face of government inaction and neglect, the remedy is now facing serious criticism as it has spiraled out of control. 25 In fact, even Justice J. S. Verma, who penned the majority opinion in Vineet Narain in which continuing mandamus first made its appearance, subsequently pronounced that "judicial activism should be neither judicial ad hocism nor judicial tyranny."26Justice B.N. Srikrishna observed that judges now seem to want to engage themselves with boundless enthusiasm in complex socio-economic issues raising myriads of facts and ideological issues that cannot be managed by "judicially manageable standards."27 Even Former Chief Justice A. S. Anand, a known defender of judicial activism, has warned against the tendency towards "judicial adventurism," reiterating the principle that "the role of the judge is that of a referee. I can blow my judicial whistle when the ball goes out of play; but when the game restarts I must neither take part in it nor tell the players how to play."28 Unless our own Supreme Court learns to curb its excesses and apply to this case the standards for judicial review it has developed over the years and applied to co-equal branches, the scenario in India could very well play out in the Philippines. The Court must try to maintain a healthy balance between the departments, precisely as the Constitution mandates, by delineating its "deft strokes and bold lines,"29 ever so conscious of the requirements of actual case and controversy. While, admittedly, there are certain flaws in the operation and implementation of the laws, the judiciary cannot take the initiative to compensate for such perceived inaction. The Court stated in Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance:30 Disregard of the essential limits imposed by the case and controversy requirement can in the long run only result in undermining our authority as a court of law. For, as judges, what we are called upon to render is judgment according to law, not according to what may appear to be the opinion of the day Hence, "over nothing but cases and controversies can courts exercise jurisdiction, and it is to make the exercise of that jurisdiction effective that they are allowed to pass upon constitutional questions."31 Admirable though the sentiments of the Court may be, it must act within jurisdictional limits. These limits are founded upon the traditional requirement of a cause of action: "the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another."32 In constitutional cases, for every writ or remedy, there must be a clear pronouncement of the corresponding right which has been infringed. Only then can there surface that "clear concreteness provided when a question emerges precisely framed and necessary for decision from a clash of adversary argument exploring every aspect of a multifaceted situation embracing conflicting and demanding interests."33 Unfortunately, the Court fails to distinguish between a pronouncement on violation of rights on one hand, and non-performance of duties vis--vis operational instructions, on the other. Moreover, it also dabbles in an interpretation of constitutional rights in a manner that is dangerously pre-emptive of legally available remedies. The "continuing mandamus" palpably overlaps with the power of congressional oversight. Article 6, Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution states: The heads of department may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, or as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the state or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

This provision pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress oversight function. Macalintal v. Comelec34 discussed the scope of congressional oversight in full. Oversight refers to the power of the legislative department to check, monitor and ensure that the laws it has enacted are enforced: The power of Congress does not end with the finished task of legislation . Concomitant with its principal power to legislate is the auxiliary power to ensure that the laws it enacts are faithfully executed. As well stressed by one scholar, the legislature "fixes the main lines of substantive policy and is entitled to see that administrative policy is in harmony with it; it establishes the volume and purpose of public expenditures and ensures their legality and propriety; it must be satisfied that internal administrative controls are operating to secure economy and efficiency; and it informs itself of the conditions of administration of remedial measure. Clearly, oversight concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives, (b) to determine whether agencies are properly administered, (c) to eliminate executive waste and dishonesty, (d) to prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority, and (d) to assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest. Congress, thus, uses its oversight power to make sure that the administrative agencies perform their functions within the authority delegated to them . Macalintal v. Comelec further discusses that legislative supervision under the oversight power connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of Congress regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. Because the power to legislate includes the power to ensure that the laws are enforced, this monitoring power has been granted by the Constitution to the legislature. In cases of executive non-implementation of statutes, the courts cannot justify the use of "continuing mandamus," as it would by its very definition overlap with the monitoring power under congressional oversight. The Resolution does not only encroach upon the general supervisory function of the Executive, it also diminished and arrogated unto itself the power of congressional oversight. Conclusion This Court cannot nobly defend the environmental rights of generations of Filipinos enshrined in the Constitution while in the same breath eroding the foundations of that very instrument from which it draws its power. While the remedy of "continuing mandamus" has evolved out of a Third World jurisdiction similar to ours, we cannot overstep the boundaries laid down by the rule of law. Otherwise, this Court would rush recklessly beyond the delimitations precisely put in place to safeguard excesses of power. The tribunal, considered by many citizens as the last guardian of fundamental rights, would then resemble nothing more than an idol with feet of clay: strong in appearance, but weak in foundation. The Court becomes a conscience by acting to remind us of limitation on power, even judicial power, and the interrelation of good purposes with good means. Morality is not an end dissociated from means. There is a morality of morality, which respects the limitation of office and the fallibility of the human mindself-limitation is the first mark of the master. That, too is part of the role of the conscience.35 The majority Resolution would, at the same time, cast the light of scrutiny more harshly on judicial action in which the Courts timely exercise of its powers is called for as in the cases of prisoners languishing in jail whose cases await speedy resolution by this Court. There would then be nothing to stop the executive and the legislative departments from considering as fair game the judiciarys own accountability in its clearly delineated department.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice