Cruz vs Secretary of DENR

GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

347 SCRA 128 (400 Phil 904)

Facts:

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as
citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No.
8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA).

Republic Act No. 8371 is simply known as "The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of
1997" or the IPRA. It grants these people1 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. Reason? These indigenous
peoples came to live in the Philippines goes back to as early as 25,000 to 30,000 B.C.

The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA that these amount to an unlawful
deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and
other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2,
Article XII of the Constitution: All lands of the public domain and all natural resources are
owned by the State.

In addition, Cruz et al contend 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) of said law also violate the rights of private
landowners.

Likewise, petitioners assail the validity of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP (National
Commission on Indigenous People) Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, which
provides that "the administrative relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is

1
1. In the Cordillera Autonomous Region- Kankaney, Ibaloi, Bontoc, Tinggian or Itneg, Ifugao, Kalinga, Yapayao, Aeta or Agta or Pugot, and Bago
of Ilocos Norte and Pangasinan; Ibanag of Isabela, Cagayan; Ilongot of Quirino and Nueva Vizcaya; Gaddang of Quirino, Nueva Vizcaya, Itawis
of Cagayan; Ivatan of Batanes, Aeta of Cagayan, Quirino and Isabela.
2. In Region III- Aetas.
3. In Region IV- Dumagats of Aurora, Rizal; Remontado of Aurora, Rizal, Quezon; Alangan or Mangyan, Batangan, Buid or Buhid, Hanunuo and
Iraya of Oriental and Occidental Mindoro; Tadyawan of Occidental Mindoro; Cuyonon, Palawanon, Tagbanua and Tao't bato of Palawan.
4. In Region V- Aeta of Camarines Norte and Camarines Sur; Aeta-Abiyan, Isarog, and Kabihug of Camarines Norte; Agta, and Mayon of
Camarines Sur; Itom of Albay, Cimaron of Sorsogon; and the Pullon of Masbate and Camarines Sur.
5. In Region VI- Ati of Negros Occidental, Iloilo and Antique, Capiz; the Magahat of Negros Occidental; the Corolano and Sulod.
6. In Region VII- Magahat of Negros Oriental and Eskaya of Bohol.
7. In Region IX- the Badjao numbering about 192,000 in Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga del Sur; the Kalibugan of Basilan, the Samal, Subanon and Yakat.
8. Region X- Numbering 1.6 million in Region X alone, the IPs are: the Banwaon, Bukidnon, Matigsalog, Talaanding of Bukidnon; the Camiguin of
Camiguin Island; the Higa-unon of Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Bukidnon and Misamis Occidental; the Tigwahanon of Agusan del Sur,
Misamis Oriental and and Misamis Occidental, the Manobo of the Agusan provinces, and the Umayamnon of Agusan and Bukidnon.
9. In Region XI- There are about 1,774,065 IPs in Region XI. They are tribes of the Dibabaon, Mansaka of Davao del Norte; B'laan, Kalagan,
Langilad, T'boli and Talaingod of Davao del Sur; Mamamanua of Surigao del Sur; Mandaya of the Surigao provinces and Davao Oriental;
Manobo Blit of South Cotabato; the Mangguangon of Davao and South Cotabato; Matigsalog of Davao del Norte and Del Sur; Tagakaolo,
Tasaday and Ubo of South Cotabato; and Bagobo of Davao del sur and South Cotabato.
10. In Region XII- Ilianen, Tiruray, Maguindanao, Maranao, Tausug, Yakan/Samal, and Iranon.43

Page 1 of 3
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.

ISSUE: Whether the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD:

VIEW POINT 1:

Section 3 of Article XII on National Economy and Patrimony of the 1987 Constitution
classifies lands of the public domain into four categories:
1. agricultural,
2. forest or timber,
3. mineral lands, and
4. national parks.

In the same article, Section 5, it states: 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. Paragraph 2 further states: 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 5 of the same Article XII mentions ancestral lands and ancestral domains but it
does not classify them under any of the said four categories.

Thus, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public
domain. These (ancestral lands and ancestral domains) are private lands and belong to
the IPs.

VIEWPOINT 2:

However in Art XII, Section 2 of the 1987 constitution states: All lands of the public domain
and all natural resources- 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. The Constitution provides that in the exploration,
development and utilization of these natural resources, the State exercises full control and
supervision. As owner of the natural resources, the State is accorded primary power
and responsibility in the exploration, development and utilization of these natural
resources.

Thus, all lands of the public domain as well as all natural resources (whether in public
or private lands) belong to the State.

Page 2 of 3
Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition. Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant
the petition. As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not
obtained, the case was re-deliberated upon. However, after re-deliberation, the voting
remained the same.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is
DISMISSED. The provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution.

Separate opinion of J. Puno:

There is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources
within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral
domains remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the IPs over the
natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners and occupants of
the land on which the resources are found, the right to the small scale utilization of these
resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and exploitation.

Although it is true, that ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands
of the public domain. These are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title,
which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the
State.

However, the right of ownership and possession by the IPs of their ancestral domains
is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to alienate the same.

Page 3 of 3