8/24/2016

CruzvsSec.ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources:135385:December6,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc

ENBANC

[G.R.No.135385.December6,2000]

ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA, petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, SECRETARY OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT and CHAIRMAN and COMMISSIONERS OF THE
NATIONALCOMMISSIONONINDIGENOUSPEOPLES,respondents.
HON. JUAN M .FLAVIER, HON. PONCIANO BENNAGEN, BAYANI ASCARRAGA,
EDTAMI MANSAYANGAN, BASILIO WANDAG, EVELYN DUNUAN, YAOM
TUGAS, ALFREMO CARPIANO, LIBERATO A. GABIN, MATERNIDAD M.
COLAS, NARCISA M. DALUPINES, BAI KIRAMCONNIE SATURNO, BAE
MLOMOBEATRIZ T. ABASALA, DATU BALITUNGTUNGANTONIO D.
LUMANDONG, DATU MANTUMUKAW TEOFISTO SABASALES, DATU
EDUAARDO BANDA, DATU JOEL UNAD, DATU RAMON BAYAAN, TIMUAY
JOSE ANOY, TIMUAY MACARIO D. SALACAO, TIMUAY EDWIN B. ENDING,
DATU SAHAMPONG MALANAW VI, DATU BEN PENDAO CABIGON, BAI
NANAPNAYLIZA SAWAY, BAY INAY DAYAMELINDA S. REYMUNDO, BAI
TINANGHAGA HELINITA T. PANGAN, DATU MAKAPUKAW ADOLINO L.
SAWAY, DATU MAUDAYAWCRISPEN SAWAY, VICKY MAKAY, LOURDES D.
AMOS, GILBERT P. HOGGANG, TERESA GASPAR, MANUEL S. ONALAN,
MIAGRACEL.GIRON,ROSEMARIEG.PE,BENITOCARINO,JOSEPHJUDE
CARANTES, LYNETTE CARANTESVIVAL, LANGLEY SEGUNDO, SATUR S.
BUGNAY, CARLING DOMULOT, ANDRES MENDIOGRIN, LEOPOLDO
ABUGAN,VIRGILIOCAYETANO,CONCHITAG.DESCAGA,LEVYESTEVES,
ODETTEG.ESTEVEZ,RODOLFOC.AGUILAR,MAUROVALONES,PEPEH.
ATONG, OFELIA T. DAVI, PERFECTO B. GUINOSAO, WALTER N. TIMOL,
MANUEL T. SELEN, OSCAR DALUNHAY, RICO O. SULATAN, RAFFY
MALINDA, ALFREDO ABILLANOS, JESSIE ANDILAB, MIRLANDO H.
MANGKULINTAS, SAMIE SATURNO, ROMEO A. LINDAHAY, ROEL S.
MANSANGCAGAN, PAQUITO S. LIESES, FILIPE G. SAWAY, HERMINIA S.
SAWAY,JULIUSS.SAWAY,LEONARDASAWAY,JIMMYUGYUB,SALVADOR
TIONGSON, VENANCIO APANG, MADION MALID, SUKIM MALID, NENENG
MALID, MANGKATADONG AUGUSTO DIANO, JOSEPHINE M. ALBESO,
MORENO MALID, MARIO MANGCAL, FELAY DIAMILING, SALOME P.
SARZA, FELIPE P. BAGON, SAMMY SALNUNGAN, ANTONIO D. EMBA,
NORMA MAPANSAGONOS, ROMEO SALIGA, SR., JERSON P. GERADA,
RENATO T. BAGON, JR., SARING MASALONG, SOLEDAD M. GERARDA,
ELIZABETH L. MENDI, MORANTE S. TIWAN, DANILO M. MALUDAO,
MINORS MARICEL MALID, represented by her father CORNELIO MALID,
MARCELINO M. LADRA, represented by her father MONICO D. LADRA,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385.htm

1/5

8/24/2016

CruzvsSec.ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources:135385:December6,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc

JENNYLYN MALID, represented by her father TONY MALID, ARIEL M.

EVANGELISTA,representedbyhermotherLINAYBALBUENA,EDWARDM.
EMUY,SR.,SUSANBOLANIO,OND,PULABATOBLAANTRIBALFARMERS
ASSOCIATION, INTERPEOPLES EXCHANGE, INC. and GREEN FORUM
WESTERNVISAYAS,intervenors.
COMMISSIONONHUMANRIGHTS,intervenor.
IKALAHAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLE and HARIBON FOUNDATION FOR THE
CONSERVATIONOFNATURALRESOURCES,INC.,intervenor.
RESOLUTION
PERCURIAM:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as
citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371
(R.A. 8371), otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its
ImplementingRulesandRegulations(ImplementingRules).
In its resolution of September 29, 1998, the Court required respondents to comment.[1] In
compliance,respondentsChairpersonandCommissionersoftheNationalCommissiononIndigenous
Peoples(NCIP),thegovernmentagencycreatedundertheIPRAtoimplementitsprovisions,filedon
October13,1998theirCommenttothePetition,inwhichtheydefendtheconstitutionalityoftheIPRA
andpraythatthepetitionbedismissedforlackofmerit.
On October 19, 1998, respondents Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources(DENR)andSecretaryoftheDepartmentofBudgetandManagement(DBM)filedthrough
theSolicitorGeneralaconsolidatedComment.The Solicitor Generalis ofthe view thattheIPRA is
partly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to indigenous
peoplesandpraysthatthepetitionbegrantedinpart.
On November 10, 1998, a group of intervenors, composed of Sen. Juan Flavier, one of the
authorsoftheIPRA,Mr.PoncianoBennagen,amemberofthe1986ConstitutionalCommission,and
theleadersandmembersof112groupsofindigenouspeoples(Flavier,et.al),filedtheirMotionfor
LeavetoIntervene.TheyjointheNCIPindefendingtheconstitutionalityofIPRAandprayingforthe
dismissalofthepetition.
OnMarch22,1999,theCommissiononHumanRights(CHR)likewisefiledaMotiontoIntervene
and/ortoAppearasAmicusCuriae.TheCHRassertsthatIPRAisanexpressionoftheprincipleof
parenspatriaeandthattheStatehastheresponsibilitytoprotectandguaranteetherightsofthose
whoareataseriousdisadvantagelikeindigenouspeoples.Forthisreasonitpraysthatthepetitionbe
dismissed.
OnMarch23,1999,anothergroup,composedoftheIkalahanIndigenousPeopleandtheHaribon
Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, Inc. (Haribon, et al.), filed a motion to
Intervene with attached CommentinIntervention. They agree with the NCIP and Flavier, et al. that
IPRA is consistent with the Constitution and pray that the petition for prohibition and mandamus be
dismissed.
Themotionsforinterventionoftheaforesaidgroupsandorganizationsweregranted.
Oral arguments were heard on April 13, 1999.Thereafter, the parties and intervenors filed their
respective memoranda in which they reiterate the arguments adduced in their earlier pleadings and
duringthehearing.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385.htm

2/5

8/24/2016

CruzvsSec.ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources:135385:December6,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc

PetitionersassailtheconstitutionalityofthefollowingprovisionsoftheIPRAanditsImplementing
RulesonthegroundthattheyamounttoanunlawfuldeprivationoftheStatesownershipoverlandsof
thepublicdomainaswellasmineralsandothernaturalresourcestherein,inviolationoftheregalian
doctrineembodiedinSection2,ArticleXIIoftheConstitution:
(1)Section3(a)whichdefinestheextentandcoverageofancestraldomains,andSection3(b)which,in
turn,definesancestrallands
(2) Section 5, in relation to section 3(a), which provides that ancestral domains including inalienable
publiclands,bodiesofwater,mineralandotherresourcesfoundwithinancestraldomainsareprivate
butcommunitypropertyoftheindigenouspeoples
(3)Section6inrelationtosection3(a)and3(b)whichdefinesthecompositionofancestraldomainsand
ancestrallands
(4)Section7whichrecognizesandenumeratestherightsoftheindigenouspeoplesovertheancestral
domains
(5)Section8whichrecognizesandenumeratestherightsoftheindigenouspeoplesovertheancestral
lands
(6)Section57whichprovidesforpriorityrightsoftheindigenouspeoplesintheharvesting,extraction,
development or exploration of minerals and other natural resources within the areas claimed to be
their ancestral domains, and the right to enter into agreements with nonindigenous peoples for the
development and utilization of natural resources therein for a period not exceeding 25 years,
renewablefornotmorethan25yearsand
(7) Section 58 which gives the indigenous peoples the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and
conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof which are found to be necessary for critical
watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover or
reforestation.[2]

Petitionersalsocontentthat,byprovidingforanallencompassingdefinitionofancestraldomains
andancestrallandswhichmightevenincludeprivatelandsfoundwithinsaidareas,Sections3(a)and
3(b)violatetherightsofprivatelandowners.[3]
Inaddition,petitionersquestiontheprovisionsoftheIPRAdefiningthepowersandjurisdictionof
the NCIP and making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral
domainsandancestrallandsonthegroundthattheseprovisionsviolatethedueprocessclauseofthe
Constitution.[4]
Theseprovisionsare:
(1)sections51to53and59whichdetailtheprocessofdelineationandrecognitionofancestraldomains
andwhichvestontheNCIPthesoleauthoritytodelineateancestraldomainsandancestrallands
(2)Section52[i]whichprovidesthatuponcertificationbytheNCIPthataparticularareaisanancestral
domain and upon notification to the following officials, namely, the Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources, Secretary of Interior and Local Governments, Secretary of Justice and
Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, the jurisdiction of said officials over said
areaterminates
(3)Section63whichprovidesthecustomarylaw,traditionsandpracticesofindigenouspeoplesshallbe
appliedfirstwithrespecttopropertyrights,claimsofownership,hereditarysuccessionandsettlement
of land disputes, and that any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation thereof shall be resolved in
favoroftheindigenouspeoples
(4)Section65whichstatesthatcustomarylawsandpracticesshallbeusedtoresolvedisputesinvolving
indigenouspeoplesand
(5)Section66whichvestsontheNCIPthejurisdictionoverallclaimsanddisputesinvolvingrightsofthe
indigenouspeoples.[5]

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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385.htm

3/5

8/24/2016

CruzvsSec.ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources:135385:December6,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc

OfficeofthePresidentischaracterizedasalateralbutautonomousrelationshipforpurposesofpolicy
andprogramcoordination.TheycontendthatsaidRuleinfringesuponthePresidentspowerofcontrol
overexecutivedepartmentsunderSection17,ArticleVIIoftheConstitution.[6]
Petitionersprayforthefollowing:
(1)AdeclarationthatSections3,5,6,7,8,52[I],57,58,59,63,65and66andotherrelatedprovisions
ofR.A.8371areunconstitutionalandinvalid
(2) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Chairperson and Commissioners of the NCIP to
ceaseanddesistfromimplementingtheassailedprovisionsofR.A.8371anditsImplementingRules
(3)TheissuanceofawritofprohibitiondirectingtheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofEnvironmentand
NaturalResourcestoceaseanddesistfromimplementingDepartmentofEnvironmentandNatural
ResourcesCircularNo.2,seriesof1998
(4)TheissuanceofawritofprohibitiondirectingtheSecretaryofBudgetandManagementtoceaseand
desistfromdisbursingpublicfundsfortheimplementationoftheassailedprovisionsofR.A.8371and
(5) The issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources to comply with his duty of carrying out the States constitutional mandate to control and
supervisetheexploration,development,utilizationandconservationofPhilippinenaturalresources.[7]

Afterduedeliberationonthepetition,themembersoftheCourtvotedasfollows:
Seven(7)votedtodismissthepetition.JusticeKapunanfiledanopinion,whichtheChiefJustice
and Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago join, sustaining the validity of the challenged
provisions of R.A. 8371. Justice Puno also filed a separate opinion sustaining all challenged
provisionsofthelawwiththeexceptionofSection1,PartII,RuleIIIofNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.
1, series of 1998, the Rules and Regulations Implementing the IPRA, and Section 57 of the IPRA
which he contends should be interpreted as dealing with the largescale exploitation of natural
resourcesandshouldbereadinconjunctionwithSection2,ArticleXIIofthe1987Constitution.On
the other hand, Justice Mendoza voted to dismiss the petition solely on the ground that it does not
raiseajusticiablecontroversyandpetitionersdonothavestandingtoquestiontheconstitutionalityof
R.A.8371.
Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. Justice Panganiban filed a
separateopinionexpressingtheviewthatSections3(a)(b),5,6,7(a)(b),8,andrelatedprovisionsof
R.A.8371areunconstitutional.HereservesjudgmentontheconstitutionalityofSections58,59,65,
and66ofthelaw,whichhebelievesmustawaitthefilingofspecificcasesbythosewhoserightsmay
havebeenviolatedbytheIPRA.JusticeVitugalsofiledaseparateopinionexpressingtheviewthat
Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional.Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga
Reyes,andDeLeonjoinintheseparateopinionsofJusticesPanganibanandVitug.
Asthevoteswereequallydivided(7to7)andthenecessarymajoritywasnotobtained,thecase
was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly,
pursuanttoRule56,Section7oftheRulesofCivilProcedure,thepetitionisDISMISSED.
Attached hereto and made integral parts thereof are the separate opinions of Justices Puno,
Vitug,Kapunan,Mendoza,andPanganiban.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Bellosillo,Melo,Quisumbing,Pardo,Buena,GonzagaReyes,YnaresSantiago,
andDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Puno,Vitug,Kapunan,MendozaandPanganibanJJ.,seeseparateopinion
[1]Rollo,p.114.
[2]Petition,Rollo,pp.1623.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385.htm

4/5

8/24/2016

CruzvsSec.ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources:135385:December6,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc

[3]Id.at2325.
[4]Section1,ArticleIIIoftheConstitutionstates:Nopersonshallbedeprivedoflife,libertyorpropertywithoutdueprocess

oflaw,norshallanypersonbedeniedtheequalprotectionofthelaws.
[5]Rollo,pp.2527.
[6]Id.at2728.
[7]TranscriptofStenographicNotesofthehearingheldonApril13,1999,pp.56.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385.htm

5/5