WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE REGALIA?

(REGALIAN DOCTRINE)
> Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the
Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic
> In a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives
> The theory of jure regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest

CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATES POWER OF DOMINUUM

> Capacity of the state to own or acquire propertyfoundation for the early Spanish decree embracing the feudal
theory of jura regalia
> This concept was first introduced through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas
> The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the
exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown.
> The Law of the Indies was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. This law provided for
the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims
> The Maura Law: was partly an amendment and was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines,
which required the adjustment or registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the State

TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS ENSHRINED IN OUR PRESENT AND PAST CONSTITUTIONS THE 1987
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY THE FOLLOWING
> 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
twenty-five 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 abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be
alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State,
the exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full
control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing
agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization

THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN THE 1935 CONSTITUTION

WHICH PROVIDES
> Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and
other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State,
and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to
any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under
this Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no
license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall
be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water
rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may
be the measure and limit of the grant.

THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE

AS FOLLOWS
> Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the
exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain, natural
resources shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or utilization of any of the
natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twentyfive years, except as to water rights for irrigation,
water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use
may by the measure and the limit of the grant.

THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN'T NEGATE NATIVE TITLE. THIS IS IN PURSUANCE TO WHAT HAS BEEN HELD IN
CRUZ V. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
> Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Indigenous Peoples Rights Act on the ground that it amounts to an
unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain and all other natural resources
therein, by recognizing the right of ownership of ICC or IPs to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the
basis of native title.
> As the votes were equally divided, the necessary majority wasnt obtained and petition was dismissed and the
laws validity was upheld
> Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesnt negate the native title to lands held in private ownership since time
immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of CARINO V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT, where the US SC through Holmes
held: xxx 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.
> Existence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of
ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish crown as an exception to the
theory of jure regalia
> Justice Puno: Carino case firmly established a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal
grant from the State and was based on the strong mandate extended to the Islands via the Philippine Bill of 1902.
The IPRA recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector in the society. It grants this people the ownership
and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands and defines the extent of these lands and domains
> Justice Vitug: Carino cannot override the collective will of the people expressed in the Constitution.
> Justice Panganiban: all Filipinos, whether indigenous or not, are subject to the Constitution, and that no one is
exempt from its allencompassing provisions
What is a Writ of Kalikasan?

A writ of kalikasan is a legal remedy designed for the protection of one's constitutional right to a healthy
environment.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution proclaimed, as one of the policies of the State, the protection of the
environment. Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution 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."

This provision, however, is deemed as non self-executing. A non self-executing provision refers to one that cannot
be invoked before the courts as it is. There must first be an enabling legislation or some other legal means by
which the same can be effectuated and be a basis of a legal cause of action. (See: Tanada v. Angara, G.R. No.
118295. May 2, 1997)

The Philippine Supreme Court then took the initiative in giving flesh to this constitutional mandate. It provided for
the writ of kalikasan as the legal means.

Writ of Kalikasan, defined

"Kalikasan" is a Filipino word which in English, means "Nature".

The Writ of Kalikasan means a legal remedy available to any natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law,
people's organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered
with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Rule 7, Sec. 1)

The writ of kalikasan may be sought by anyone a) whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is violated, or b) whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is threatened with violation, by an
unlawful act of omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity and such violation or threat
involves environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants of
two or more cities, or provinces. (Rule 7, Section 1)

The petition for the writ of kalikasan shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court
of Appeals. (Rule 7, Section 3) Note, however, that the filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan
shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions. (Rule 7, Section 17)

Within 3 days from filing the petition deemed sufficient in form and substance, the Court shall issue the writ and
require the respondent to file a return. (Rule 7, Section 5)

In response, the respondent is required to file a return containing his defenses and supporting evidence within a
non-extendible 10-day period after the service to him of the writ. He must raise all defenses in the return,
otherwise they are deemed waived. A general denial of the petitioners allegations shall be deemed an admission
by the respondent. (Rule 7, Section 8) If the petition fails to file a return, the hearing shall proceed ex parte (i.e.,
the hearing will proceed with only 1 side being heard). (Rule 7, Section 10)

The penalty of indirect contempt may be meted out to a) a respondent who refuses to file the return, b) a
respondent who unduly delays the filing of a return, c) a respondent who falsifies a return, or d) any one who
disobeys or resists a lawful process of court order. (Rule 7, Section 13)

In further recognition of the importance of a speedy resolution, the following filings are prohibited:
a) motion to dismiss
b) motion for extension of time to file return
c) motion for postponement
d) motion for a bill of particulars
e) counterclaim or cross-claim
f) third-party complaint
g) reply, and
h) motion to declare respondent in default. (Rule 7, Section 9)

However, the following motions are allowed:

1. motion for ocular inspection (1) indicating the place/s sought to be inspected and (2) supported by
affidavits of witnesses having personal knowledge of the violation or threatened violation of
environmental law. and
2. motion for production or inspection of documents or things. (Rule 7, Section 12)

When the court receives the return, it may call a preliminary conference to simplify the issues, determine the
possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions from the parties, and set the petition for hearing. The petition
shall be given the same priority as petitions for the writ ofhabeas corpus, amparo and habeas data; thus, the
hearing and the preliminary conference shall be all done within 60 days (Rule 7, Section 11)

After the hearing, the case shall be submitted for decision in which case, the court may require the filing of
memoranda within a non-extendible 30-day period from the date the case is submitted for decision.

Within 60 days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court shall grant or deny the privilege of
the writ of kalikasan. The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:

a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or neglecting the performance of
a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental destruction or damage;

b) Directing the respondent public official, government

agency, private person or entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;

c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity to monitor strict
compliance with the decision and orders of the court;

d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or entity to make periodic
reports on the execution of the final judgment; and

e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to the
protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, except the award of damages to
individual petitioners. (Rule 7, Section 15)

Appeal to the Supreme Court, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (i.e. a petition for review on certiorari), is
available within 15 days from the notice of the judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration. It is important to
note that this appeal may raise questions of fact. (Rule 7, Section 16)

This writ is an innovation of the Philippine Supreme Court as one of the legal means to combat the destruction of
the environment. This writ is one of a kind, available only within Philippine jurisdiction. It is extraordinary in
nature, meaning to say, that it can be resorted to only when other ordinary legal remedies such as injunction or
damage suit are unavailing.

The writ of kalikasan forms part of the new procedures in civil, criminal and special civil actions involving
environmental laws. (Rule 1, Section 2, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)[1] There are 2 special civil
actions in the new rules for environmental cases, one is the writ of continuing mandamaus and the other is the
writ of kalikasan.

Features of the Writ of Kalikasan

The underlying condition for the writ to be issued is that, the magnitude requirement with regards to the
destruction or imminent destruction of the environment which is sought to be prevented, must be present.

The entities to whom the writ can be directed against, the Rules provides that it could be anybody. They could be
public officials, employees or even private persons, for as so long as it could be proven that they violated or
threatened with violation the constitutional right to a healthy environment of other people.

The Rules likewise provides for various reliefs that could be granted by the courts under the writ which includes,
among others, the issuance of order against the respondent to cease or refrain from committing acts violative of
the rights of the petitioners asking for the writ. It can also be an order commanding the respondent to perform
positive acts to preserve or protect the environment as well as to make reports of their compliance with these
responsibilities. (Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rule 7, Sec. 15)

Writ of Kalikasan, applied

Currently, there are at least two (2) instances wherein the writ of kalikasan was availed of. Thefirst one was
directed against an electric power distribution company and the second one was against an oil pipeline operator.
The first case is still pending trial while the latter was successfully granted by the Philippine Supreme Court.

Mandamus ("We command") is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court, [1] to any
government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act
which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty, and in
certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory
provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been
made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to
rule on the applications.
Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is
supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected
right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he
is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.