G.R. No.

135385 Case Digest

G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa
vs National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
Facts:
Petitioners view that the IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the
ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to
indigenous peoples. They argue that IPRA and its implementing rules
will amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State's ownership
over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other
natural resources, in violation of the regalian doctrine of the
Constitution.
Petitioners also content that, by providing for an all-encompassing
definition of "ancestral domains" and "ancestral lands" which might
even include private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a)
and 3(b) violate the rights of private landowners.
In addition, petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA
defining the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making
customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving
ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the ground that these
provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution.
Finally, petitioners assail the validity of Rule VII, Part II,
Section 1 of the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998,
which provides that "the administrative relationship of the NCIP to
the Office of the President is characterized as a lateral but
autonomous relationship for purposes of policy and program
coordination." They contend that said Rule infringes upon the
Presidents power of control over executive departments under
Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution.
As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary
majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon.
However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED.
Notes:
Puno: "When Congress enacted the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
(IPRA), it introduced radical concepts into the Philippine legal
system which appear to collide with settled constitutional and
jural precepts on state ownership of land and other natural
resources. The sense and subtleties of this law cannot be
appreciated without considering its distinct sociology and the

labyrinths of its history. This Opinion attempts to interpret IPRA

by discovering its soul shrouded by the mist of our history. After
all, the IPRA was enacted by Congress not only to fulfil the
constitutional mandate of protecting the indigenous cultural
communities' right to their ancestral land but more importantly, to
correct a grave historical injustice to our indigenous people."
The IPRA recognizes the existence of the indigenous cultural
communities or indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector
in Philippine society. It grants these people the ownership and
possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and
defines the extent of these lands and domains. The ownership given
is the indigenous concept of ownership under customary law which
traces its origin to native title.
Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous Peoples refer to a
group of people or homogeneous societies who have continuously
lived as an organized community on communally bounded and defined
territory. These groups of people have actually occupied, possessed
and utilized their territories under claim of ownership since time
immemorial.
They
share
common
bonds
of
language,
customs,
traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or, they, by
their resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of
colonization,
non-indigenous
religions
and
cultures,
became
historically differentiated from the Filipino majority. ICCs/IPs
also include descendants of ICCs/IPs who inhabited the country at
the time of conquest or colonization, who retain some or all of
their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions but
who may have been displaced from their traditional territories or
who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains.
To recognize the rights of the indigenous peoples effectively,
Senator Flavier proposed a bill based on two postulates: (1) the
concept of native title; and (2) the principle of parens patriae.
"Sec. 3 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 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.
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, widen farms and tree lots."
The rights of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains and ancestral
lands may be acquired in two modes: (1) by native title over both
ancestral lands and domains; or (2) by torrens title under the
Public Land Act and the Land Registration Act with respect to
ancestral lands only.
Native title refers to ICCs/IPs' preconquest rights to lands and
domains held under a claim of private ownership as far back as
memory reaches. These lands are deemed never to have been public
lands and are indisputably presumed to have been held that way
since before the Spanish Conquest.
Article 12
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may
enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations
at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twentyfive years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases
of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or
industrial uses other than the development of water power,
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone,
and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish

farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in

rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of
local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered
into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its
execution.
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks.
Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified
by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.
Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not
hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for
a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more
than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in
area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five
hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof,
by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and
development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform,
the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the
public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and
the conditions therefor.
Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine, by
law, the specific limits of forest lands and national parks,
marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such
forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be
increased nor diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide
for such period as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging
in endangered forests and watershed areas.
Section 5. 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.
Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all
economic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals
and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and
similar collective organizations, shall have the right to own,
establish, and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of
the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the
common good so demands.
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands
shall
be
transferred
or
conveyed
except
to
individuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of
the public domain.