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

ISAGANICRUZandCESAREUROPA,
petitioners,vs.SECRETARYOFENVIRONMENTAND
NATURALRESOURCES,SECRETARYOFBUDGETAND
MANAGEMENTandCHAIRMANandCOMMISSIONERSOF
THENATIONALCOMMISSIONONINDIGENOUS
PEOPLES,respondents.
xxHON.
JUANM.FLAVIER,HON.PONCIANOBENNAGEN,
BAYANIASCARRAGA,EDTAMIMANSAYANGAN,BASILIO
WANDAG,EVELYNDUNUAN,YAOMTUGAS,ALFREMO
CARPIANO,LIBERATOA.GABIN,MATERNIDADM.
COLAS,NARCISAM.DALUPINES,BAIKIRAMCONNIE
SATURNO,BAEMALOMOBEATRIZT.ABASALA,DATU
BALITUNGTUNGANTONIOD.LUMANDONG,DATU
MANTUMUKAWTEOFISTOSABASALES,DATU
EDUARDOBANDA,DATUJOELUNAD,DATURAMON
BAYAAN,TIMUAYJOSEANOY,TIMUAYMACARIOD.
SALACAO,TIMUAYEDWINB.ENDING,DATU
SAHAMPONGMALANAWVI,DATUBENPENDAO
CABIGON,BAINANAPNAYLIZASAWAY,BAIINAY
DAYAMELINDAS.REYMUNDO,BAITINANGHAGA
HELINITAT.PANGAN,DATUMAKAPUKAWADOLINOL.
SAWAY,DATUMAUDAYAWCRISPENSAWAY,VICKY
MAKAY,LOURDESD.AMOS,GILBERTP.HOGGANG,
TERESAGASPAR,MANUELS.ONALAN,MIAGRACEL.
GIRON,ROSEMARIEG.PE,BENITOCARINO,JOSEPH
JUDECARANTES,LYNETTECARANTESVIVAL,
LANGLEYSEGUNDO,SATURS.BUGNAY,CARLING
DOMULOT,ANDRESMENDIGORIN,LEOPOLDO
ABUGAN,VIRGILIOCAYETANO,CONCHITAG.
DESCAGA,LEVYESTEVES,ODETTEG.ESTEVEZ,
RODOLFOC.AGUILAR,MAUROVALONES,PEPEH.
ATONG,OFELIAT.DAVI,PERFECTOB.GUINOSAO,
WALTERN.TIMOL,MANUELT.SELEN,OSCAR
DALUNHAY,RICOO.SULATAN,RAFFYMALINDA,
ALFREDOABILLANOS,JESSIEANDILAB,MIRLANDOH.
MANGKULINTAS,SAMIESATURNO,ROMEOA.
LINDAHAY,ROELS.MANSANGCAGAN,PAQUITOS.
LIESES,FILIPEG.SAWAY,HERMINIAS.SAWAY,JULIUS
S.SAWAY,LEONARDASAWAY,JIMMYUGYUB,
SALVADORTIONGSON,VENANCIOAPANG,MADION
MALID,SUKIMMALID,NENENGMALID,
MANGKATADONGAUGUSTODIANO,JOSEPHINEM.
ALBESO,MORENOMALID,MARIOMANGCAL,FELAY
DIAMILING,SALOMEP.SARZA,FELIFEP.BAGON,
SAMMYSALNUNGAN,ANTONIOD.EMBA,NORMA
MAPANSAGONOS,ROMEOSALIGA,SR.,JERSONP.
GERADA,RENATOT.BAGON,JR.,SARINGMASALONG,
SOLEDADM.GERARDA,ELIZABETHL.MENDI,
MORANTES.TIWAN,DANILOM.MALUDAO,MINORS
MARICELMALID,representedbyherfatherCORNELIO
MALID,MARCELINOM.LADRA,representedbyherfather
MONICOD.LADRA,JENNYLYNMALID,representedbyher
fatherTONYMALID,ARIELM.EVANGELISTA,represented
byhermotherLINAYBALBUENA,EDWARDM.EMUY,SR.,
SUSANBOLANIO,OND,PULABATOBLAANTRIBAL
FARMERSASSOCIATION,INTERPEOPLESEXCHANGE,
INC.andGREENFORUMWESTERNVISAYAS,intervenor.
xx
COMMISSIONONHUMANRIGHTS,intervenor.x
x
IKALAHANINDIGENOUSPEOPLEandHARIBON
FOUNDATIONFORTHECONSERVATIONOFNATURAL
RESOURCES,INC.,intervenor.

SupremeCourt;Judgments;JudicialReview;Wherethevotesinthe
Courtenbancareequallydividedandthenecessarymajorityisnot
obtained,thecaseisredeliberatedupon,butifafterdeliberation,the
votingremainsthesame,thepetitionisdismissedpursuanttoRule56,
Section7oftheRulesofCivilProcedure.Afterduedeliberationonthe
petition,themembersoftheCourtvotedasfollows:Seven(7)votedto
dismissthepetition.JusticeKapunanfiledanopinion,whichtheChief
JusticeandJusticesBellosillo,Quisumbing,andSantiagojoin,
sustainingthevalidityofthechallengedprovisionsofR.A.8371.Justice
Punoalsofiledaseparateopinionsustainingallchallengedprovisions
ofthelawwiththeexceptionofSection1,PartII,RuleIIIofNCIP
AdministrativeOrderNo.1,seriesof1998,theRulesandRegulations
ImplementingtheIPRA,andSection57oftheIPRAwhichhecontends
shouldbeinterpretedasdealingwiththelargescaleexploitationof
naturalresourcesandshouldbereadinconjunctionwithSection2,
ArticleXIIofthe1987Constitution.Ontheotherhand,Justice
Mendozavotedtodismissthepetitionsolelyonthegroundthatitdoes
notraiseajusticiablecontroversyandpetitionersdonothavestanding
toquestiontheconstitutionalityofR.A.8371.Seven(7)othermembers
oftheCourtvotedtograntthepetition.JusticePanganibanfileda
separateopinionexpressingtheviewthatSections3(a)(b),5,6,7(a)(b),
8,andrelatedprovisionsofR.A.8371areunconstitutional.Hereserves
judgmentontheconstitutionalityofSections58,59,65,and66ofthe
law,whichhebelievesmustawaitthefilingofspecificcasesbythose
whoserightsmayhavebeenviolatedbytheIPRA.JusticeVitugalso
filedaseparateopinionexpressingtheviewthatSections3(a),7,and
57ofR.A.8371areunconstitutional.JusticesMelo,Pardo,Buena,
GonzagaReyes,andDeLeonjoinintheseparateopinionsofJustices
PanganibanandVitug.Asthevoteswereequallydivided(7to7)and
thenecessarymajoritywasnotobtained,thecasewasredeliberated
upon.However,afterredeliberation,thevotingremainedthesame.
Accordingly,pursuanttoRule56,Section7oftheRulesofCivil
Procedure,thepetitionisDISMISSED.

PUNO,J.,SeparateOpinion:

NationalPatrimony;RegalianDoctrine;NaturalResources;Public
Lands;TheRegalianDoctrineorjuraregaliaisaWesternlegal
conceptthatwasfirstintroducedbytheSpaniardsintothecountry
throughtheLawsoftheIndiesandtheRoyalCedulas.Thecapacityof
theStatetoownoracquirepropertyisthestatespowerofdominium.
ThiswasthefoundationfortheearlySpanishdecreesembracingthe
feudaltheoryofjuraregalia.TheRegalianDoctrineorjuraregaliais
aWesternlegalconceptthatwasfirstintroducedbytheSpaniardsinto
thecountrythroughtheLawsoftheIndiesandtheRoyalCedulas.
Same;Same;Same;Same;WordsandPhrases;ThePublicLand
Act(ActNo.926)operatedontheassumptionthattitletopubliclandsin
thePhilippineIslandsremainedinthegovernment,andthatthe
governmentstitletopubliclandsprungfromtheTreatyofParisand
othersubsequenttreatiesbetweenSpainandtheUnitedStates;The
termpubliclandreferredtoalllandsofthepublicdomainwhosetitle
stillremainedinthegovernmentandarethrownopentoprivate
appropriationandsettlement,andexcludedthepatrimonialpropertyof
thegovernmentandthefriarlands.ActNo.926,thefirstPublicLand
Act,waspassedinpursuanceoftheprovisionsofthePhilippineBillof
1902.Thelawgovernedthedispositionoflandsofthepublicdomain.It
prescribedrulesandregulationsforthehomesteading,selling,and
leasingofportionsofthepublicdomainofthePhilippineIslands,and
prescribedthetermsandconditionstoenablepersonstoperfecttheir
titlestopubliclandsintheIslands.Italsoprovidedfortheissuanceof
patentstocertainnativesettlersuponpubliclands,forthe
establishmentoftownsitesandsaleoflotstherein,forthecompletion
ofimperfecttitles,andforthecancellationorconfirmationofSpanish
concessionsandgrantsintheIslands.Inshort,thePublicLandAct
operatedontheassumptionthattitletopubliclandsinthePhilippine
Islandsremainedinthegovernment;andthatthegovernmentstitleto
publiclandsprungfromtheTreatyofParisandothersubsequent
treatiesbetweenSpainandtheUnitedStates.Thetermpublicland
referredtoalllandsofthepublicdomainwhosetitlestillremainedin
thegovernmentandarethrownopentoprivateappropriationand
settlement,andexcludedthepatrimonialpropertyofthegovernment
andthefriarlands.
Same;Same;Same;Same;LandTitles;EnactedbythePhilippine
Commission,Act496placedallpublicandprivatelandsinthe
PhilippinesundertheTorrenssystem.Grantsofpubliclandwere
broughtundertheoperationoftheTorrenssystemunderAct496,or
theLandRegistrationLawof1903.EnactedbythePhilippine
Commission,Act496placedallpublicandprivatelandsinthe
PhilippinesundertheTorrenssystem.Thelawissaidtobealmosta
verbatimcopyoftheMassachusettsLandRegistrationActof1898,
which,inturn,followedtheprinciplesandprocedureoftheTorrens
systemofregistrationformulatedbySirRobertTorrenswhopatterned
itaftertheMerchantShippingActsinSouthAustralia.TheTorrens
systemrequiresthatthegovernmentissueanofficialcertificateoftitle
attestingtothefactthatthepersonnamedistheowneroftheproperty
describedtherein,subjecttosuchliensandencumbrancesasthereon
notedorthelawwarrantsorreserves.Thecertificateoftitleis
indefeasibleandimprescriptibleandallclaimstotheparceloflandare
quieteduponissuanceofsaidcertificate.Thissystemhighlyfacilitates
landconveyanceandnegotiation.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Thedelegatestothe1935Constitutional
ConventionverywellknewthattheconceptofStateownershipofland
andnaturalresourceswasintroducedbytheSpaniards,however,they
werenotcertainwhetheritwascontinuedandappliedbythe
Americans,sotoremovealldoubts,theConventionapprovedthe
provisionintheConstitutionaffirmingtheRegaliandoctrine.The
Regaliandoctrinewasenshrinedinthe1935Constitution.Oneofthe
fixedanddominatingobjectivesofthe1935ConstitutionalConvention
wasthenationalizationandconservationofthenaturalresourcesofthe
country.TherewasanoverwhelmingsentimentintheConventionin
favoroftheprincipleofstateownershipofnaturalresourcesandthe
adoptionoftheRegaliandoctrine.Stateownershipofnaturalresources
wasseenasanecessarystartingpointtosecurerecognitionofthe
statespowertocontroltheirdisposition,exploitation,development,or
utilization.ThedelegatestotheConstitutionalConventionverywell
knewthattheconceptofStateownershipoflandandnaturalresources
wasintroducedbytheSpaniards,however,theywerenotcertain
whetheritwascontinuedandappliedbytheAmericans.Toremoveall
doubts,theConventionapprovedtheprovisionintheConstitution
affirmingtheRegaliandoctrine.
Same;IndigenousPeoplesRightsAct(RA.No.8371);Ancestral
Domains:AncestralLands;CustomaryLaws;TheIndigenousPeoples
RightsAct(IPRA)grantstheindigenousculturalcommunitiesor
indigenouspeoples(ICCs/IPs)theownershipandpossessionoftheir
ancestraldomainsandancestrallands,anddefinestheextentofthese
landsanddomains,andtheownershipgivenistheindigenousconcept
ofownershipundercustomarylawwhichtracesitsorigintonativetitle.
RepublicActNo.8371isentitledAnActtoRecognize,Protectand
PromotetheRightsofIndigenousCulturalCommunities/Indigenous
Peoples,CreatingaNationalCommissiononIndigenousPeoples,
EstablishingImplementingMechanisms,AppropriatingFunds
Therefor,andforOtherPurposes.ItissimplyknownasThe
IndigenousPeoplesRightsActof1997ortheIPRA.TheIPRA
recognizestheexistenceoftheindigenousculturalcommunitiesor
indigenouspeoples(ICCs/IPs)asadistinctsectorinPhilippine
society.Itgrantsthesepeopletheownershipandpossessionoftheir
ancestraldomainsandancestrallands,anddefinestheextentofthese
landsanddomains.Theownershipgivenistheindigenousconceptof
ownershipundercustomarylawwhichtracesitsorigintonativetitle.
 Same;Same;Same;Same;WordsandPhrases;Indigenous
CulturalCommunitiesorIndigenousPeoplesrefertoagroupofpeople
orhomogeneoussocietieswhohavecontinuouslylivedasanorganized
communityoncommunallyboundedanddefinedterritory.Indigenous
CulturalCommunitiesorIndigenousPeoplesrefertoagroupofpeople
orhomogeneoussocietieswhohavecontinuouslylivedasanorganized
communityoncommunallyboundedanddefinedterritory.Thesegroups
ofpeoplehaveactuallyoccupied,possessedandutilizedtheirterritories
underclaimofownershipsincetimeimmemorial.Theysharecommon
bondsoflanguage,customs,traditionsandotherdistinctivecultural
traits,or,they,bytheirresistancetopolitical,socialandcultural
inroadsofcolonization,nonindigenousreligionsandcultures,became
historicallydifferentiatedfromtheFilipinomajority.ICCs/IPsalso
includedescendantsofICCs/IPswhoinhabitedthecountryatthetime
ofconquestorcolonization,whoretainsomeoralloftheirownsocial,
economic,culturalandpoliticalinstitutionsbutwhomayhavebeen
displacedfromtheirtraditionalterritoriesorwhomayhaveresettled
outsidetheirancestraldomains.
Same;Same;Same;Same;TheabrogationoftheFilipinos
ancestralrightsinlandandtheintroductionoftheconceptofpublic
domainwerethemostimmediatefundamentalresultsofSpanish
colonialtheoryandlaw.Alllandslostbytheoldbarangaysinthe
processofpuebloorganizationaswellasalllandsnotassignedtothem
andthepueblos,werenowdeclaredtobecrownlandsorrealengas,
belongingtotheSpanishking.Itwasfromtherealengasthatland
grantsweremadetononFilipinos.TheabrogationoftheFilipinos
ancestralrightsinlandandtheintroductionoftheconceptofpublic
domainwerethemostimmediatefundamentalresultsofSpanish
colonialtheoryandlaw.TheconceptthattheSpanishkingwasthe
ownerofeverythingofvalueintheIndiesorcolonieswasimposedon
thenatives,andthenativeswerestrippedoftheirancestralrightsto
land.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Colonialismtendedtodivideandrule
anotherwiseculturallyandhistoricallyrelatedpopulacethrougha
colonialsystemthatexploitedboththevirtuesandvicesoftheFilipinos.
TheMorosandinfielesresistedSpanishruleandChristianity.The
MorosweredrivenfromManilaandtheVisayastoMindanao;whilethe
infieles,tothehinterlands.TheSpaniardsdidnotpursuethemintothe
deepinterior.Theuplandsocietieswerenaturallyoutsidethe
immediateconcernofSpanishinterest,andthecliffsandforestsofthe
hinterlandsweredifficultandinaccessible,allowingtheinfieles,in
effect,relativesecurity.Thus,theinfieles,whichwereperipheralto
colonialadministration,werenotonlyabletopreservetheirown
culturebutalsothwartedtheChristianizationprocess,separating
themselvesfromthenewlyevolvedChristiancommunity.Theirown
political,economicandsocialsystemswerekeptconstantlyaliveand
vibrant.TheproChristianorproIndioattitudeofcolonialismbrought
aboutagenerallymutualfeelingofsuspicion,fear,andhostility
betweentheChristiansontheonehandandthenonChristiansonthe
other.Colonialismtendedtodivideandruleanotherwiseculturallyand
historicallyrelatedpopulacethroughacolonialsystemthatexploited
boththevirtuesandvicesoftheFilipinos.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Underthe1973Constitution,forthe
firsttimeinPhilippinehistory,thenonChristiantribesorthe
culturalminoritieswereaddressedbythehighestlawoftheRepublic,
andtheywerereferredtoasculturalcommunities.Itwasinthe1973
ConstitutionthattheStateadoptedthefollowingprovision:TheState
shallconsiderthecustoms,traditions,beliefs,andinterestsofnational
culturalcommunitiesintheformulationandimplementationofState
policies.ForthefirsttimeinPhilippinehistory,thenonChristian
tribesortheculturalminoritieswereaddressedbythehighestlawof
theRepublic,andtheywerereferredtoasculturalcommunities.More
importantlythistime,theiruncivilizedculturewasgivensome
recognitionandtheircustoms,traditions,beliefsandinterestswereto
beconsideredbytheStateintheformulationandimplementationof
Statepolicies.PresidentMarcosabolishedtheCNIandtransferredits
functionstothePresidentialAdviseronNationalMinorities
(PANAMIN).ThePANAMINwastaskedtointegratetheethnicgroups
thatsoughtfullintegrationintothelargercommunity,andatthesame
timeprotecttherightsofthosewhowishtopreservetheiroriginal
lifewaysbesidethelargercommunity.Inshort,whilestilladoptingthe
integrationpolicy,thedecreerecognizedtherightoftribalFilipinosto
preservetheirwayoflife.
Same;Same;Same;Same;TheAquinogovernmentsignifiedatotal
shiftfromthepolicyofintegrationtooneofpreservation.TheAquino
governmentsignifiedatotalshiftfromthepolicyofintegrationtooneof
preservation.InvokingherpowersundertheFreedomConstitution,
PresidentAquinocreatedtheOfficeofMuslimAffairs,Officefor
NorthernCulturalCommunitiesandtheOfficeforSouthernCultural
CommunitiesallundertheOfficeofthePresident.
Same;Same;Same;Same;TheState,byrecognizingtherightof
tribalFilipinostotheirancestrallandsanddomains,haseffectively
upheldtheirrighttoliveinaculturedistinctlytheirown.The1987
Constitutioncarriesatleastsix(6)provisionswhichinsuretherightof
tribalFilipinostopreservetheirwayoflife.ThisConstitutiongoes
furtherthanthe1973Constitutionbyexpresslyguaranteeingtherights
oftribalFilipinostotheirancestraldomainsandancestrallands.By
recognizingtheirrighttotheirancestrallandsanddomains,theState
haseffectivelyupheldtheirrighttoliveinaculturedistinctlytheir
own.
Same;Same;Same;Same;LandTitles;Landtitlesdonotexistin
theindigenouspeopleseconomicandsocialsystemtheconceptof
individuallandownershipunderthecivillawisalientothem.Land
titlesdonotexistintheindigenouspeoples'economicandsocialsystem.
Theconceptofindividuallandownershipunderthecivillawisaliento
them.Inherentlycolonialinorigin,ournationallandlawsand
governmentalpoliciesfrownuponindigenousclaimstoancestrallands.
Communalownershipislookeduponasinferior,ifnotinexistent.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Itwastoaddressthecenturiesold
neglectofthePhilippineindigenouspeoplesthattheTenthCongress
passedandapprovedtheIndigenousPeoplesRightsAct(IPRA)of1997.
ItwastoaddressthecenturiesoldneglectofthePhilippine
indigenouspeoplesthattheTenthCongressofthePhilippines,bytheir
jointefforts,passedandapprovedR.A.No.8371,theIndigenous
PeoplesRightsAct(IPRA)of1997.Thelawwasaconsolidationoftwo
BillsSenateBillNo.1728andHouseBillNo.9125.
Same;Same;Same;Same;WordsandPhrases;Ancestral
Domains,Explained.Ancestraldomainsareallareasbelongingto
ICCs/IPsheldunderaclaimofownership,occupiedorpossessedby
ICCs/IPsbythemselvesorthroughtheirancestors,communallyor
individuallysincetimeimmemorial,continuouslyuntilthepresent,
exceptwheninterruptedbywar,forcemajeureordisplacementbyforce,
deceit,stealthorasaconsequenceofgovernmentprojectsoranyother
voluntarydealingswithgovernmentand/orprivateindividualsor
corporations.Ancestraldomainscompriselands,inlandwaters,coastal
areas,andnaturalresourcesthereinandincludesancestrallands,
forests,pasture,residential,agricultural,andotherlandsindividually
ownedwhetheralienableornot,huntinggrounds,burialgrounds,
worshipareas,bodiesofwater,mineralandothernatural
resources.Theyalsoincludelandswhichmaynolongerbeexclusively
occupiedbyICCs/IPsbutfromwhichtheytraditionallyhadaccesstofor
theirsubsistenceandtraditionalactivities,particularlythehome
rangesofICCs/IPswhoarestillnomadicand/orshiftingcultivators.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;AncestralLands,Explained.
AncestrallandsarelandsheldbytheICCs/IPsunderthesame
conditionsasancestraldomainsexceptthatthesearelimitedtolands
andthattheselandsarenotmerelyoccupiedandpossessedbutarealso
utilizedbytheICCs/IPsunderclaimsofindividualortraditionalgroup
ownership.Theselandsincludebutarenotlimitedtoresidentiallots,
riceterracesorpaddies,privateforests,swiddenfarmsandtreelots.
Same;Same;Same;Same;LandTitles;CustomaryLaws;The
NationalCommissiononIndigenousPeoples(NCIP)issuesaCertificate
ofAncestralDomainTitle(CADT)inthenameofthecommunity
concerned,leavingtheallocationoflandswithintheancestraldomain
toanyindividualorindigenouscorporate(familyorclan)claimantsto
theICCs/IPsconcernedtodecideinaccordancewithcustomsand
traditionswhilewithrespecttoancestrallandsoutsidetheancestral
domains,theNICPissuesaCertificateofAncestralLandTitle(CALT).
Upondueapplicationandcompliancewiththeprocedureprovided
underthelawanduponfindingbytheNCIPthattheapplicationis
meritorious,theNCIPshallissueaCertificateofAncestralDomain
Title(CADT)inthenameofthecommunityconcerned.Theallocation
oflandswithintheancestraldomaintoanyindividualorindigenous
corporate(familyorclan)claimantsislefttotheICCs/IPsconcernedto
decideinaccordancewithcustomsandtraditions.Withrespectto
ancestrallandsoutsidetheancestraldomain,theNCIPissuesa
CertificateofAncestralLandTitle(CALT).CADTsandCALTsissued
undertheIPRAshallberegisteredbytheNCIPbeforetheRegisterof
Deedsintheplacewherethepropertyissituated.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;TheIPRAcategoricallydeclares
ancestrallandsanddomainsheldbynativetitleasnevertohavebeen
publiclanddomainsandlandsheldundernativetitleare,therefore,
indisputablypresumedtohaveneverbeenpubliclandsandareprivate.
NativetitlereferstoICCs/IPspreconquestrightstolandsand
domainsheldunderaclaimofprivateownershipasfarbackasmemory
reaches.Theselandsaredeemednevertohavebeenpubliclandsand
areindisputablypresumedtohavebeenheldthatwaysincebeforethe
SpanishConquest.TherightsofICCs/IPstotheir
ancestraldomains(whichalsoincludeancestrallands)byvirtueof
nativetitleshallberecognizedandrespected.Formalrecognition,when
solicitedbyICCs/IPsconcerned,shallbeembodiedinaCertificateof
AncestralDomainTitle(CADT),whichshallrecognizethetitleofthe
concernedICCs/IPsovertheterritoriesidentifiedanddelineated.Likea
Torrenstitle,aCADTisevidenceofprivateownershipoflandbynative
title.Nativetitle,however,isarightofprivateownershippeculiarly
grantedtoICCs/IPsovertheirancestrallandsanddomains.TheIPRA
categoricallydeclaresancestrallandsanddomainsheldbynativetitle
asnevertohavebeenpublicland.Domainsandlandsheldundernative
titleare,therefore,indisputablypresumedtohaveneverbeenpublic
landsandareprivate.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Theconceptofnativetitlefirst
upheldinCariov.InsularGovernment,41Phil935(1909),212US.
449,53L.Ed.594,andenshrinedintheIPRAgrantsownership,albeit
inlimitedform,ofthelandtotheICCs/IPs.InthePhilippines,the
conceptofnativetitlefirstupheldinCarioandenshrinedintheIPRA
grantsownership,albeitinlimitedform,ofthelandtotheICCs/IPs.
Nativetitlepresumesthatthelandisprivateandwasnever
public.Carioistheonlycasethatspecificallyandcategorically
recognizesnativetitle.ThelonglineofcasescitingCariodidnottouch
onnativetitleandtheprivatecharacterofancestraldomainsand
lands.Cariowascitedbythesucceedingcasestosupporttheconcept
ofacquisitiveprescriptionunderthePublicLandActwhichisa
differentmatteraltogether.UnderthePublicLandAct,landsoughtto
beregisteredmustbepublicagriculturalland.Whentheconditions
specifiedinSection48[b]ofthePublicLandActarecompliedwith,the
possessorofthelandisdeemedtohaveacquired,byoperationoflaw,a
righttoagrantoftheland.Thelandceasestobepartofthepublic
domain,ipsojure,andisconvertedtoprivatepropertybythemere
lapseorcompletionoftheprescribedstatutoryperiod.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Ancestrallandsandancestral
domainsarenotpartofthelandsofthepublicdomain;theyareprivate
andbelongtotheICCs/IPs.Thus,ancestrallandsandancestral
domainsarenotpartofthelandsofthepublicdomain.Theyareprivate
andbelongtotheICCs/IPs.Section3ofArticleXIIonNational
EconomyandPatrimonyofthe1987Constitutionclassifieslandsofthe
publicdomainintofourcategories:(a)agricultural,(b)forestortimber,
(c)minerallands,and(d)nationalparks.Section5ofthesameArticle
XIImentionsancestrallandsandancestraldomainsbutitdoesnot
classifythemunderanyofthesaidfourcategories.Toclassifythemas
publiclandsunderanyoneofthefourclasseswillrendertheentire
IPRAlawanullity.ThespiritoftheIPRAliesinthedistinctconceptof
ancestraldomainsandancestrallands.TheIPRAaddressesthemajor
problemoftheICCs/IPswhichislossofland.Landandspaceareof
vitalconcernintermsofsheersurvivaloftheICCs/IPs.The1987
ConstitutionmandatestheStatetoprotecttherightsofindigenous
culturalcommunitiestotheirancestrallandsandthatCongress
providefortheapplicabilityofcustomarylawsxxxindeterminingthe
ownershipandextentofancestraldomain.Itistherecognitionofthe
ICCs/IPsdistinctrightsofownershipovertheirancestraldomainsand
landsthatbreatheslifeintothisconstitutionalmandate.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Therightofownershipandpossessionof
theICCs/IPstotheirancestraldomainsisheldundertheindigenous
conceptofownershipwhichmaintainstheviewthatancestraldomains
aretheICCs/IPsprivatebutcommunityproperty.Therightof
ownershipandpossessionoftheICCs/IPstotheirancestraldomainsis
heldundertheindigenousconceptofownership.Thisconceptmaintains
theviewthatancestraldomainsaretheICCs/IPsprivatebut
communityproperty.Itisprivatesimplybecauseitisnotpartofthe
publicdomain.Butitsprivatecharacterendsthere.Theancestral
domainisownedincommonbytheICCs/IPsandnotbyoneparticular
person.TheIPRAitselfprovidesthatareaswithintheancestral
domains,whetherdelineatedornot,arepresumedtobecommunally
held.Thesecommunalrights,however,arenotexactlythesameasco
ownershiprightsundertheCivilCode.Coownershipgivesanyco
ownertherighttodemandpartitionofthepropertyheldincommon.
TheCivilCodeexpresslyprovidesthat[n]ocoownershallbeobligedto
remaininthecoownership.Eachcoownermaydemandatanytime
thepartitionofthethingincommon,insofarashisshareisconcerned.
Toallowsucharightoverancestraldomainsmaybedestructivenot
onlyofcustomarylawofthecommunitybutoftheverycommunity
itself.
Same;Same;Same;Same;CustomaryLaws;TheIPRA,by
legislativefiat,introducesanewconceptofownership,aconceptthat
haslongexistedundercustomarylaw.Followingtheconstitutional
mandatethatcustomarylawgovernpropertyrightsorrelationsin
determiningtheownershipandextentofancestraldomains,theIPRA,
bylegislativeflat,introducesanewconceptofownership.Thisisa
conceptthathaslongexistedundercustomarylaw.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Customarylawisaprimary,not
secondary,sourceofrightsundertheIPRAanduniquelyappliesto
ICCs/IPs,anditsrecognitiondoesnotdependontheabsenceofa
specificprovisioninthecivillaw.Custom,fromwhichcustomarylaw
isderived,isalsorecognizedundertheCivilCodeasasourceoflaw.
SomearticlesoftheCivilCodeexpresslyprovidethatcustomshouldbe
appliedincaseswherenocodalprovisionisapplicable.Inotherwords,
intheabsenceofanyapplicableprovisionintheCivilCode,custom,
whendulyproven,candefinerightsandliabilities.Customarylawisa
primary,notsecondary,sourceofrightsundertheIPRAanduniquely
appliestoICCs/IPs.Itsrecognitiondoesnotdependontheabsenceofa
specificprovisioninthecivillaw.Theindigenousconceptofownership
undercustomarylawisspecificallyacknowledgedandrecognized,and
coexistswiththecivillawconceptandthelawsonlandtitlingandland
registration.
Same;Same;Same;Same;NaturalResources;Thereisnothingin
IPRAthatgrantstotheICCs/IPsownershipoverthenaturalresources
withintheirancestraldomains.ExaminingtheIPRA,thereisnothing
inthelawthatgrantstotheICCs/IPsownershipoverthenatural
resourceswithintheirancestraldomains.TherightofICCs/IPsintheir
ancestraldomainsincludesownership,butthisownershipisexpressly
definedandlimitedinSection7(a)as:Sec.7.a)Rightofownership
Therighttoclaimownershipoverlands,bodiesofwatertraditionally
andactuallyoccupiedbyICCs/IPs,sacredplaces,traditionalhunting
andfishinggrounds,andallimprovementsmadebythematanytime
withinthedomains;TheICCs/IPsaregiventherighttoclaim
ownershipoverlands,bodiesofwatertraditionallyandactually
occupiedbyICCs/IPs,sacredplaces,traditionalhuntingandfishing
grounds,andallimprovementsmadebythematanytimewithinthe
domains.Itwillbenotedthatthisenumerationdoesnot
mentionbodiesofwaternotoccupiedbytheICCs/IPs,minerals,coal,
wildlife,floraandfaunainthetraditionalhuntinggrounds,fishinthe
traditionalfishinggrounds,forestsortimberinthesacredplaces,etc.
andallothernaturalresourcesfoundwithintheancestraldomains.
Indeed,therightofownershipunderSection7(a)doesnot
coverwaters,minerals,coal,petroleumandothermineraloils,all
forcesofpotentialenergy,fisheries,forestsortimber,wildlife,floraand
faunaandallothernaturalresourcesenumeratedinSection2,Article
XIIofthe1987ConstitutionasbelongingtotheState.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Theinclusionofnatural
resourcesinSection1,PartII,RuleIIIoftheImplementingRulesgoes
beyondtheparametersofSection7(b)ofthelawandiscontraryto
Section2,ArticleXIIofthe1987Constitution.Theconstitutionalityof
Section1,PartII,RuleIIIoftheImplementingRuleswasnot
specificallyandcategoricallychallengedbypetitioners.Petitioners
actuallyassailtheconstitutionalityoftheImplementingRulesin
general.Nevertheless,toavoidanyconfusionintheimplementationof
thelaw,itisnecessarytodeclarethattheinclusionofnatural
resourcesinSection1,PartII,RuleIIIoftheImplementingRulesgoes
beyondtheparametersofSection7(b)ofthelawandiscontraryto
Section2,ArticleXIIofthe1987Constitution.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Therighttonegotiatetheterms
andconditionsoverthenaturalresourcescoversonlytheirexploration
whichmustbeforthepurposeofensuringecologicalandenvironmental
protectionof,andconservationmeasuresintheancestraldomainit
doesnotextendtotheexploitationanddevelopmentofnaturalresources.
Ownershipoverthenaturalresourcesintheancestraldomains
remainswiththeStateandtheICCs/IPsaremerelygrantedtheright
tomanageandconservethemforfuturegenerations,benefitand
sharetheprofitsfromtheirallocationandutilization,andnegotiate
thetermsandconditionsfortheirexplorationforthepurposeof
ensuringecologicalandenvironmentalprotectionandconservation
measures.Itmustbenotedthattherighttonegotiatethetermsand
conditionsoverthenaturalresourcescoversonlytheirexploration
whichmustbeforthepurposeofensuringecologicalandenvironmental
protectionof,andconservationmeasuresintheancestraldomain.It
doesnotextendtotheexploitationanddevelopmentofnatural
resources.Simplystated,theICCs/IPsrightsoverthenatural
resourcestaketheformofmanagementorstewardship.Forthe
ICCs/IPsmayusetheseresourcesandshareintheprofitsoftheir
utilizationornegotiatethetermsfortheirexploration.Atthesame
time,however,theICCs/IPsmustensurethatthenaturalresources
withintheirancestraldomainsareconservedforfuturegenerationsand
thattheutilizationoftheseresourcesmustnotharmtheecologyand
environmentpursuanttonationalandcustomarylaws.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Thelimitedrightsof
managementanduseinSection7(b)oftheIPRAmustbetakento
contemplatesmallscaleutilizationofnaturalresourcesasdistinguished
fromlargescaleutilization.Thelimitedrightsofmanagementand
useinSection7(b)mustbetakentocontemplatesmallscale
utilizationofnaturalresourcesasdistinguishedfromlargescale.
Smallscaleutilizationofnaturalresourcesisexpresslyallowedinthe
thirdparagraphofSection2,ArticleXIIoftheConstitutionin
recognitionoftheplightofforestdwellers,goldpanners,marginal
fishermenandotherssimilarlysituatedwhoexploitournatural
resourcesfortheirdailysustenanceandsurvival.Section7(b)also
expresslymandatestheICCs/IPstomanageandconservethese
resourcesandensureenvironmentalandecologicalprotectionwithin
thedomains,whichduties,bytheirverynature,necessarilyreject
utilizationinalargescale.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;TherightsgrantedbytheIPRAto
theICCs/IPsoverthenaturalresourcesintheirancestraldomains
merelygivestheICCs/IPs,asownersandoccupantsofthelandon
whichtheresourcesarefound,therighttothesmallscaleutilizationof
theseresources,andatthesametime,apriorityintheirlargescale
developmentandexploitation.TherightsgrantedbytheIPRAtothe
ICCs/IPsoverthenaturalresourcesintheirancestraldomainsmerely
givestheICCs/IPs,asownersandoccupantsofthelandonwhichthe
resourcesarefound,therighttothesmallscaleutilizationofthese
resources,andatthesametime,apriorityintheirlargescale
developmentandexploitation.Section57doesnotmandatetheStateto
automaticallygiveprioritytotheICCs/IPs.TheStatehasseveral
optionsanditiswithinitsdiscretiontochoosewhichoptiontopursue.
Moreover,thereisnothinginthelawthatgivestheICCs/IPstheright
tosolelyundertakethelargescaledevelopmentofthenaturalresources
withintheirdomains.TheICCs/IPsmustundertakesuchendeavour
alwaysunderStatesupervisionorcontrol.ThisindicatesthattheState
doesnotlosecontrolandownershipovertheresourcesevenintheir
exploitation.Sections7(b)and57ofthelawsimplygiveduerespectto
theICCs/IPswho,asactualoccupantsofthelandwherethenatural
resourceslie,havetraditionallyutilizedtheseresourcesfortheir
subsistenceandsurvival.
Same;Same;Same;Same;EcologyandEnvironment;Indigenous
rightscameasaresultofbothhumanrightsandenvironmental
protection,andhavebecomeapartoftodaysprioritiesforthe
internationalagenda.Presently,thereisagrowingconcernfor
indigenousrightsintheinternationalscene.Thiscameasaresultof
theincreasedpublicityfocusedonthecontinuingdisrespectfor
indigenoushumanrightsandthedestructionoftheindigenouspeoples
environment,togetherwiththenationalgovernmentsinabilitytodeal
withthesituation.Indigenousrightscameasaresultofbothhuman
rightsandenvironmentalprotection,andhavebecomeapartoftodays
prioritiesfortheinternationalagenda.
Same;Same;Same;Same;CustomaryLaws;Iftheevolutionofthe
Filipinopeopleintoademocraticsocietyistotrulyproceed
democratically,i.e.,iftheFilipinosasawholearetoparticipatefullyin
thetaskofcontinuingdemocratization,itistheSupremeCourtsdutyto
acknowledgethepresenceofindigenousandcustomarylawsinthe
countryandaffirmtheircoexistencewiththelandlawsinournational
legalsystem.ThestruggleoftheFilipinosthroughoutcolonialhistory
hadbeenplaguedbyethnicandreligiousdifferences.Thesedifferences
werecarriedoverandmagnifiedbythePhilippinegovernmentthrough
theimpositionofanationallegalorderthatismostlyforeigninorigin
orderivation.Largelyunpopulist,thepresentlegalsystemhasresulted
inthealienationofalargesectorofsociety,specifically,theindigenous
peoples.Thehistoriesandculturesoftheindigenesarerelevanttothe
evolutionofPhilippinecultureandarevitaltotheunderstandingof
contemporaryproblems.ItisthroughtheIPRAthatanattemptwas
madebyourlegislatorstounderstandFilipinosocietynotintermsof
mythsandbiasesbutthroughcommonexperiencesinthecourseof
history.ThePhilippinesbecameademocracyacentennialagoandthe
decolonizationprocessstillcontinues.IftheevolutionoftheFilipino
peopleintoademocraticsocietyistotrulyproceeddemocratically,i.e.,if
theFilipinosasawholearetoparticipatefullyinthetaskofcontinuing
democratization,itisthisCourtsdutytoacknowledgethepresenceof
indigenousandcustomarylawsinthecountryandaffirmtheirco
existencewiththelandlawsinournationallegalsystem.

VITUG,J.,SeparateOpinion:
SupremeCourt;JudicialReview;ProceduralRulesand
Technicalities;Untilanexactbalanceisstruck,theCourtmustaccept
aneclecticnotionthatcanfreeitselffromthebondageoflegalnicetyand
holdtrenchanttechnicalitiessubordinatetowhatmaybeconsideredto
beofoverridingconcern.Nevertheless,whereamostcompelling
reasonexists,suchaswhenthematterisoftranscendentalimportance
andparamountinteresttothenation,theCourtmusttaketheliberal
approachthatrecognizesthelegalstandingofnontraditionalplaintiffs,
suchascitizensandtaxpayers,toraiseconstitutionalissuesthataffect
them.ThisCourtthusdidsoinacasethatinvolvestheconservationof
ourforestsforecologicalneeds.Untilanexactbalanceisstruck,the
CourtmustacceptaneclecticnotionthatcanfreeItselffromthe
bondageoflegalnicetyandholdtrenchanttechnicalitiessubordinateto
whatmaybeconsideredtobeofoverridingconcern.
NationalPatrimony;RegalianDoctrine;Natural
Resources;IndigenousPeoplesRightsAct(IPRA);Theprovisions
Sections7and57oftheIPRA,intheirtotality,are,inmyview,beyond
thecontextofthefundamentallawandvirtuallyamounttoanundue
delegation,ifnotanunacceptableabdication,ofStateauthorityovera
significantareaofthecountryanditspatrimony.IPRAeffectively
withdrawsfromthepublicdomainthesocalledancestraldomains
coveringliterallymillionsofhectares.Thenotionofcommunity
propertywouldcomprehendnotonlymattersofproprietaryinterestbut
alsosomeformsofselfgovernanceoverthecarvedoutterritory.This
conceptiselaboratedinSection7ofthelawwhichstatesthatthe
rightsofownershipandpossessionofICCs/IPstotheirancestral
domainsshallberecognizedandprotected,subsumedunderwhich
wouldencompasstherightofownership(paragrapha);therightto
develop,controlanduselandsandnaturalresources,includingthe
righttonegotiatethetermsandconditionsfortheexplorationof
naturalresourcesintheareasforthepurposeofensuringecological,
environmentalprotectionandtheconservationmeasures,pursuantto
nationalandcustomarylaws;(par.b);therighttostayinthe
territories(par.c);therighttoreturntotheirabandonedlands.Incase
ofdisplacement(par.d);therighttoregulateentryofmigrants(par.e);
therighttoclaimpartsofancestraldomainspreviouslyreserved(par.
g);andtherighttoresolvelandconflicts.Inaccordanceprimarilywith
customarylaw(par.h).Concurrently,Section57statesthatICCs/IPs
shallbegivenpriorityrightsintheharvesting,extraction,
developmentorexploitationofanynaturalresourceswithinthe
ancestraldomains.TheseprovisionsofIPRA,intheirtotality,are,in
myview,beyondthecontextofthefundamentallawandvirtually
amounttoanunduedelegation,ifnotanunacceptableabdication,of
Stateauthorityoverasignificantareaofthecountryanditspatrimony.
Same;Same;Same;ThedecisionoftheUnitedStatesSupreme
CourtinCariov.InsularGovernment,41Phil935(1910),holdingthat
aparceloflandheldsincetimeimmemorialbyindividualsundera
claimofprivateownershipispresumednevertohavebeenpublicland
andcitedtodowngradetheapplicationoftheregaliandoctrine,cannot
overridethecollectivewillofthepeopleexpressedintheConstitution.
ThedecisionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinCariovs.
InsularGovernment,holdingthataparceloflandheldsincetime
immemorialbyindividualsunderaclaimofprivateownershipis
presumednevertohavebeenpubliclandandcitedtodowngradethe
applicationoftheregaliandoctrine,cannotoverridethecollectivewillof
thepeopleexpressedintheConstitution.Itisinthemthatsovereignty
residesandfromthemthatallgovernmentauthorityemanates.Itis
notthenforacourtrulingoranypieceoflegislationtobeconformedto
bythefundamentallaw,butitisfortheformertoadapttothelatter,
anditisthesovereignactthatmust,betweenthem,standinviolate.
CustomaryLaws;IdonotseethestatementinSection5ofArticle
XIIoftheConstitutionallowingCongresstoprovideforthe
applicabilityofcustomarylawsgoverningpropertyrightsorrelationsin
determiningtheownershipandextentofancestraldomainsassaying
thatCongressmayenactalawthatwouldsimplyexpressthat
customarylawsshallgovernandenditthere.Thesecondparagraph
ofSection5ofArticleXIIoftheConstitutionallowsCongresstoprovide
fortheapplicabilityofcustomarylawsgoverningpropertyrightsor
relationsindeterminingtheownershipandextentofancestral
domains.IdonotseethisstatementassayingthatCongressmay
enactalawthatwouldsimplyexpressthatcustomarylawsshall
governandenditthere.Haditbeenso,theConstitutioncouldhave
itselfeasilyprovidedwithouthavingtostillcommissionCongresstodo
it.
Same;Customarylaws,whenspecificallyenactedtobecomepartof
statutorylaw,mustfirstundergothatpublicationtorenderthem
correspondinglybindingandeffectiveassuch.Theconstitutionalaim,
itseemstome,istogetCongresstolookcloselyintothecustomary
lawsand,withspecificityandbyproperrecitals,tohewthemto,and
makethempartof,thestreamoflaws.Thedueprocessclause,asIso
understanditinTaadavs.Tuverawouldrequireanaptpublicationof
alegislativeenactmentbeforeitispermittedtotakeforceandeffect.
So,alsocustomarylaws,whenspecificallyenactedtobecomepartof
statutorylaw,mustfirstundergothatpublicationtorenderthem
correspondinglybindingandeffectiveassuch.

KAPUNAN,J.,SeparateOpinion:

IndigenousPeoplesRightsAct(IPRA);Wordsand
Phrases;InternationalLaw;Ininternationallaw,thedefinitionofwhat
constitutesindigenouspeoplesattainssomedegreeofcontroversy.
ThetermindigenoustracesitsorigintotheOldLatinwordindu,
meaningwithin.Inthesensethetermhascometobeused,itis
nearerinmeaningtotheLatinwordindigenus,whichmeansnative.
Indigenousreferstothatwhichoriginatedorhasbeenproduced
naturallyinaparticularland,andhasnotbeenintroducedfromthe
outside.Ininternationallaw,thedefinitionofwhatconstitutes
indigenouspeoplesattainssomedegreeofcontroversy.Nodefinition
ofthetermindigenouspeopleshasbeenadoptedbytheUnited
Nations(UN),althoughUNpracticehasbeenguidedbyaworking
definitioninthe1986ReportofUNSpecialRapporteurMartinezCobo.
Same;Same;InPhilippineconstitutionallaw,thetermindigenous
peoplespertainstothosegroupsofFilipinoswhohaveretainedahigh
degreeofcontinuityfrompreConquestculture.InPhilippine
constitutionallaw,thetermindigenouspeoplespertainstothose
groupsofFilipinoswhohaveretainedahighdegreeofcontinuityfrom
preConquestculture.Philippinelegalhistory,however,hasnotbeen
kindtotheindigenouspeoples,characterizedthemasuncivilized,
backwardpeople,withbarbarouspracticesandaloworderof
intelligence.
Same;Same;TheextantPhilippinenationalcultureisthecultureof
themajority,itsindigenousrootswerereplacedbyforeigncultural
elementsthataredecidedlypronounced,ifnotdominant.Though
Filipinostodayareessentiallyofthesamestockastheindigenous
peoples,ournationalcultureexhibitsonlythelastvestigesofthis
nativeculture.Centuriesofcolonialruleandneocolonialdomination
havecreatedadiscernibledistinctionbetweentheculturalmajorityand
thegroupofculturalminorities.TheextantPhilippinenationalculture
isthecultureofthemajority;itsindigenousrootswerereplacedby
foreignculturalelementsthataredecidedlypronounced,ifnot
dominant.WhilethecultureofthemajorityreorienteditselftoWestern
influence,thecultureoftheminoritieshasretaineditsessentially
nativecharacter.
SupremeCourt;JudicialReview;WhentheStatemachineryisset
intomotiontoimplementanallegedunconstitutionalstatute,the
SupremeCourtpossessessufficientauthoritytoresolveandprevent
imminentinjuryandviolationoftheconstitutionalprocess.Inthecase
atbar,thereexistsalivecontroversyinvolvingaclashoflegalrights.A
lawhasbeenenacted,andtheImplementingRulesandRegulations
approved.Moneyhasbeenappropriatedandthegovernmentagencies
concernedhavebeendirectedtoimplementthestatute.Itcannotbe
successfullymaintainedthatweshouldawaittheadverseconsequences
ofthelawinordertoconsiderthecontroversyactualandripefor
judicialresolution.Itispreciselythecontentionofthepetitionersthat
thelaw,onitsface,constitutesanunconstitutionalabdicationofState
ownershipoverlandsofthepublicdomainandothernaturalresources.
Moreover,whentheStatemachineryissetintomotiontoimplementan
allegedunconstitutionalstatute,thisCourtpossessessufficient
authoritytoresolveandpreventimminentinjuryandviolationofthe
constitutionalprocess.
Same;Same;Parties;LocusStandi;TaxpayersSuits;Citizens
Suits;Inasense,allcitizensandtaxpayerssuitsareeffortstoair
generalizedgrievancesabouttheconductofgovernmentandthe
allocationofpower.Inadditiontotheexistenceofanactualcaseor
controversy,apersonwhoassailsthevalidityofastatutemusthavea
personalandsubstantialinterestinthecase,suchthat,hehas
sustained,orwillsustain,adirectinjuryasaresultofitsenforcement.
Evidently,therightsassertedbypetitionersascitizensandtaxpayers
areheldincommonbyallthecitizens,theviolationofwhichmayresult
onlyinageneralizedgrievance.Yet,inasense,allcitizensand
taxpayerssuitsareeffortstoairgeneralizedgrievancesaboutthe
conductofgovernmentandtheallocationofpower.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;NationalPatrimony;The
preservationoftheintegrityandinviolabilityofthenationalpatrimony
isapropersubjectofacitizenssuit.Petitioners,ascitizens,possess
thepublicrighttoensurethatthenationalpatrimonyisnotalienated
anddiminishedinviolationoftheConstitution.Sincethegovernment,
astheguardianofthenationalpatrimony,holdsitforthebenefitofall
Filipinoswithoutdistinctionastoethnicity,itfollowsthatacitizenhas
sufficientinteresttomaintainasuittoensurethatanygrantof
concessionscoveringthenationaleconomyandpatrimonystrictly
complieswithconstitutionalrequirements.Thus,thepreservationof
theintegrityandinviolabilityofthenationalpatrimonyisaproper
subjectofacitizenssuit.
NationalPatrimony;RegalianDoctrine;Thetheoryofjuraregalia
wasnothingmorethananaturalfruitofconquest;TheRegaliantheory
doesnotnegatenativetitletolandsheldinprivateownershipsincetime
immemorial.Generally,undertheconceptofjuraregalia,privatetitle
tolandmustbetracedtosomegrant,expressorimplied,fromthe
SpanishCrownoritssuccessors,theAmericanColonialgovernment,
andthereafter,thePhilippineRepublic.ThebeliefthattheSpanish
CrownistheoriginofalllandtitlesinthePhilippineshaspersisted
becausetitletolandmustemanatefromsomesourceforitcannotissue
forthfromnowhere.Initsbroadsense,thetermjuraregaliarefersto
royalrights,orthoserightswhichtheKinghasbyvirtueofhis
prerogatives.InSpanishlaw,itreferstoarightwhichthesovereign
hasoveranythinginwhichasubjecthasarightofproperty
orpropriedad.Thesewererightsenjoyedduringfeudaltimesbythe
kingasthesovereign.Thetheoryofthefeudalsystemwasthattitleto
alllandswasoriginallyheldbytheKing,andwhiletheuseoflandswas
grantedouttootherswhowerepermittedtoholdthemundercertain
conditions,theKingtheoreticallyretainedthetitle.Byfictionoflaw,
theKingwasregardedastheoriginalproprietorofalllands,andthe
trueandonlysourceoftitle,andfromhimalllandswereheld.The
theoryofjuraregaliawasthereforenothingmorethananaturalfruitof
conquest.TheRegaliantheory,however,doesnotnegatenativetitleto
landsheldinprivateownershipsincetimeimmemorial.
Same;Same;NaturalResources;ThemerefactthatSection3(a)of
IPRAdefinesancestraldomainstoincludethenaturalresources,found
thereindoesnotipsofactoconvertthecharacterofsuchnatural
resourcesasprivatepropertyoftheindigenouspeople.Section3(a)
merelydefinesthecoverageofancestraldomains,anddescribesthe
extent,limitandcompositionofancestraldomainsbysettingforththe
standardsandguidelinesindeterminingwhetheraparticularareaisto
beconsideredaspartofandwithintheancestraldomains.Inother
words,Section3(a)servesonlyasayardstickwhichpointsoutwhat
propertiesarewithintheancestraldomains.Itdoesnotconferor
recognizeanyrightofownershipoverthenaturalresourcestothe
indigenouspeoples.Itspurposeisdefinitionalandnotdeclarativeofa
rightortitle.Thespecificationofwhatareasbelongtotheancestral
domainsis,toourmind,importanttoensurethatnounnecessary
encroachmentonprivatepropertiesoutsidetheancestraldomainswill
resultduringthedelineationprocess.ThemerefactthatSection3(a)
definesancestraldomainstoincludethenaturalresourcesfound
thereindoesnotipsofactoconvertthecharacterofsuchnatural
resourcesasprivatepropertyoftheindigenouspeoples.Similarly,
Section5inrelationtoSection3(a)cannotbeconstruedasasourceof
ownershiprightsofindigenouspeopleoverthenaturalresourcessimply
becauseitrecognizesancestraldomainsastheirprivatebut
communityproperty.
Same;Same;Same;WordsandPhrases;Thephraseprivatebut
communitypropertyismerelydescriptiveoftheindigenouspeoples
conceptofownershipasdistinguishedfromthatprovidedintheCivil
Code.Thephraseprivatebutcommunitypropertyismerely
descriptiveoftheindigenouspeoplesconceptofownershipas
distinguishedfromthatprovidedintheCivilCode.InCivilLaw,
ownershipistheindependentandgeneralpowerofapersonovera
thingforpurposesrecognizedbylawandwithinthelimitsestablished
thereby.Thecivillawconceptofownershiphasthefollowing
attributes:jusutendiortherighttoreceivefromthethingthatwhichit
produces,jusabutendiortherighttoconsumethethingbyitsuse,jus
disponendiorthepowertoalienate,encumber,transformandeven
destroythatwhichisowned,andjusvindicandiortherighttoexclude
otherpersonsfromthepossessionthethingowned.Incontrast,the
indigenouspeoplesconceptofownershipemphasizestheimportanceof
communalorgroupownership.Byvirtueofthecommunalcharacterof
ownership,thepropertyheldincommoncannotbesold,disposedor
destroyedbecauseitwasmeanttobenefitthewholeindigenous
communityandnotmerelytheindividualmember.
Same;Same;Same;Theconceptofnativetitletonaturalresources,
unlikenativetitletoland,hasnotbeenrecognizedinthePhilippines.
Finally,theconceptofnativetitletonaturalresources,unlikenative
titletoland,hasnotbeenrecognizedinthePhilippines.NCIPand
Flavier,etal.invokethecaseofReaviesv.Fianzainsupportoftheir
thesisthatnativetitletonaturalresourceshasbeenupheldinthis
jurisdiction.Theyinsistthatitispossibleforrightsovernatural
resourcestovestonaprivate(asopposedtoapublic)holderifthese
wereheldpriortothe1935Constitution.However,ajudicious
examinationofReaviesrevealsthat,contrarytothepositionofNCIP
andFlavier,etal.,theCourtdidnotrecognizenativetitletonatural
resources.Rather,itmerelyupheldtherightoftheindigenouspeoples
toclaimownershipofmineralsunderthePhilippineBillof1902.
Same;Same;Same;Uponthecertificationofcertainareasas
ancestraldomainfollowingtheprocedureoutlinedinSections51to53
oftheIPRA,jurisdictionofthegovernmentagencyoragenciesconcerned
overlandsformingpartthereofceasesbutthejurisdictionofgovernment
agenciesoverthenaturalresourceswithintheancestraldomainsdoes
notterminatebysuchcertificationbecausesaidagenciesaremandated
underexistinglawstoadministerthenaturalresourcesfortheState,
whichistheownerthereof.Undoubtedly,certainareasthatare
claimedasancestraldomainsmaystillbeundertheadministrationof
otheragenciesoftheGovernment,suchastheDepartmentofAgrarian
Reform,withrespecttoagriculturallands,andtheDepartmentof
EnvironmentandNaturalResourceswithrespecttotimber,forestand
minerallands.Uponthecertificationoftheseareasasancestraldomain
followingtheprocedureoutlinedinSections51to53oftheIPRA,
jurisdictionofthegovernmentagencyoragenciesconcerned
overlandsformingpartthereofceases.Nevertheless,thejurisdictionof
governmentagenciesoverthenaturalresourceswithintheancestral
domainsdoesnotterminatebysuchcertificationbecausesaidagencies
aremandatedunderexistinglawstoadministerthenaturalresources
fortheState,whichistheownerthereof.ToconstrueSection52[i]as
divestingtheState,throughthegovernmentagenciesconcerned,of
jurisdictionoverthenaturalresourceswithintheancestraldomains
wouldbeinconsistentwiththeestablisheddoctrinethatallnatural
resourcesareownedbytheState.
Same;Same;Same;Clearly,Section2,ArticleXII,wheninterpreted
inviewoftheproFilipino,propoorphilosophyofourfundamentallaw,
andinharmonywiththeotherprovisionsoftheConstitutionratherasa
sequesteredpronouncement,cannotbeconstruedasaprohibition
againstanyandallformsofutilizationofnaturalresourceswithoutthe
Statesdirectparticipation.Inadditiontothemeansofexploration,
developmentandutilizationofthecountrysnaturalresourcesstatedin
paragraph1,Section2ofArticleXII,theConstitutionitselfstatesin
thethirdparagraphofthesamesectionthatCongressmay,bylaw,
allowsmallscaleutilizationofnaturalresourcesbyitscitizens.
Further,Section6,ArticleXIII,directstheState,inthedisposition
andutilizationofnaturalresources,toapplytheprinciplesofagrarian
reformorstewardship.Similarly,Section7,ArticleXIIImandatesthe
Statetoprotecttherightsofsubsistencefishermentothepreferential
useofmarineandfishingresources.Clearly,Section2,ArticleXII,
wheninterpretedinviewoftheproFilipino,propoorphilosophyofour
fundamentallaw,andinharmonywiththeotherprovisionsofthe
Constitutionratherasasequesteredpronouncement,cannotbe
construedasaprohibitionagainstanyandallformsofutilizationof
naturalresourceswithouttheStatesdirectparticipation.
Same;Same;Same;LandTitles;BytheenactmentofIPRA,
CongressdidnotpurporttoannulanyandallTorrenstitleswithin
areasclaimedasancestrallandsorancestraldomains.Further,bythe
enactmentofIPRA,Congressdidnotpurporttoannulanyandall
Torrenstitleswithinareasclaimedasancestrallandsorancestral
domains.Thestatuteimposesstrictproceduralrequirementsforthe
properdelineationofancestrallandsandancestraldomainsas
safeguardsagainstthefraudulentdeprivationofanylandownerofhis
land,whetherornotheismemberofanindigenouscultural
community.Inallproceedingsfordelineationofancestrallandsand
ancestraldomains,theDirectorofLandsshallappeartorepresentthe
interestoftheRepublicofthePhilippines.Withregardtoancestral
domains,thefollowingprocedureismandatory:first,petitionbyan
indigenousculturalcommunity,ormotupropriobytheNCIP;second,
investigationandcensusbytheAncestraldomainsOffice(ADO)ofthe
NCIP;third,preliminaryreportbytheADO;fourth,postingand
publication;andlastly,evaluationbytheNCIPuponsubmissionofthe
finalreportoftheADO.Withregardtoancestrallands,unlesssuch
landsarewithinanancestraldomain,thestatuteimposesthefollowing
proceduralrequirements:first,application;second,postingand
publication;third,investigationandinspectionbythe
ADO;fourth,delineation;lastly,evaluationbytheNCIPupon
submissionofareportbytheADO.Hence,wecannotsustainthe
argumentsofthepetitionersthatthelawaffordsnoprotectiontothose
whoarenotindigenouspeoples.
IndigenousPeoples;DueProcess;ThefactthattheNCIPis
composedofmembersoftheindigenouspeoplesdoesnotmeanthatit
(theNCIP)isincapable,orwillappeartobesoincapable,ofdelivering
justicetothenonindigenouspeoples.ThefactthattheNCIPis
composedofmembersoftheindigenouspeoplesdoesnotmeanthatit
(theNCIP)isincapable,orwillappeartobesoincapable,ofdelivering
justicetothenonindigenouspeoples.Apersonspossessionofthetrait
ofimpartialitydesirableofajudgehasnothingtodowithhisorher
ethnicroots.Inthiswise,theindigenouspeoplesareascapableof
renderingjusticeasthenonindigenouspeoplesfor,certainly,thelatter
havenomonopolyoftheconceptofjustice.
Same;CustomaryLaws;TheuseofcustomarylawsundertheIPRA
isnotabsolute,forthelawspeaksmerelyofprimacyofuse.Anentthe
useofcustomarylawsindeterminingtheownershipandextentof
ancestraldomains,sufficeittosaythatsuchisallowedunder
paragraph2,Section5ofArticleXIIoftheConstitution.Saidprovision
states,TheCongressmayprovidefortheapplicabilityofcustomary
lawsgoverningpropertyrightsandrelationsindeterminingthe
ownershipandextentoftheancestraldomains.Notably,theuseof
customarylawsunderIPRAisnotabsolute,forthelawspeaksmerely
ofprimacyofuse.TheIPRAprescribestheapplicationofsuchcustomary
lawswherethesepresentaworkablesolutionacceptabletotheparties,
whoaremembersofthesameindigenousgroup.Thisinterpretationis
supportedbySection1,RuleIXoftheImplementingRules.
Same;Same;Whenoneofthepartiestoadisputeisanonmember
ofanindigenousgroup,orwhentheindigenouspeoplesinvolvedbelong
todifferentgroups,theapplicationofcustomarylawisnotrequired.
Theapplicationofcustomarylawislimitedtodisputesconcerning
propertyrightsorrelationsindeterminingtheownershipandextentof
theancestraldomains,whereallthepartiesinvolvedaremembersof
indigenouspeoples,specifically,ofthesameindigenousgroup.It
thereforefollowsthatwhenoneofthepartiestoadisputeisanon
memberofanindigenousgroup,orwhentheindigenouspeoples
involvedbelongtodifferentgroups,theapplicationofcustomarylawis
notrequired.
AdministrativeLaw;Presidency;PowerofControl;Wordsand
Phrases;Anindependentagencyisanadministrativebody
independentoftheexecutivebranchoronenotsubjecttoasuperiorhead
ofdepartment,asdistinguishedfromasubordinateagencyoran
administrativebodywhoseactionissubjecttoadministrativereviewor
revision.TheNCIPhasbeendesignatedunderIPRAastheprimary
governmentagencyresponsiblefortheformulationandimplementation
ofpolicies,plansandprogramstopromoteandprotecttherightsand
wellbeingoftheindigenouspeoplesandtherecognitionoftheir
ancestraldomainaswellastheirrightsthereto.Ithasbeengranted
administrative,quasilegislativeandquasijudicialpowerstocarryout
itsmandate.ThediversenatureoftheNCIPsfunctionsrendersit
impossibletoplacesaidagencyentirelyunderthecontrolofonlyone
branchofgovernmentandthis,apparently,isthereasonforits
characterizationbyCongressasanindependentagency.An
independentagencyisdefinedasanadministrativebodyindependent
oftheexecutivebranchoronenotsubjecttoasuperiorheadof
department,asdistinguishedfromasubordinateagencyoran
administrativebodywhoseactionissubjecttoadministrativereviewor
revision.
Same;Same;Same;TheNCIP,althoughindependenttoacertain
degree,wasplacedbyCongressundertheofficeofthePresidentand,
assuch,isstillsubjecttothePresidentspowertocontroland
supervisionwithrespecttoitsperformanceofadministrativefunctions.
ThatCongressdidnotintendtoplacetheNCIPunderthecontrolof
thePresidentinallinstancesisevidentintheIPRAitself,which
providesthatthedecisionsoftheNCIPintheexerciseofitsquasi
judicialfunctionsshallbeappealabletotheCourtofAppeals,likethose
oftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)andtheSecurities
andExchangeCommission(SEC).Nevertheless,theNCIP,although
independenttoacertaindegree,wasplacedbyCongressunderthe
officeofthePresidentand,assuch,isstillsubjecttothePresidents
powerofcontrolandsupervisiongrantedunderSection17,ArticleVII
oftheConstitutionwithrespecttoitsperformanceofadministrative
functions,suchasthefollowing:(1)theNCIPmustsecurethe
Presidentsapprovalinobtainingloanstofinanceitsprojects;(2)it
mustobtainthePresidentsapprovalforanynegotiationforfundsand
fortheacceptanceofgiftsand/orpropertiesinwhateverformandfrom
whateversource;(3)theNCIPshallsubmitannualreportsofits
operationsandachievementstothePresident,andadvisethelatteron
allmattersrelatingtotheindigenouspeoples;and(4)itshallexercise
suchotherpowersasmaybedirectedbythePresident.ThePresidentis
alsogiventhepowertoappointtheCommissionersoftheNCIPaswell
astoremovethemfromofficeforcausemotupropriooruponthe
recommendationofanyindigenouscommunity.

MENDOZA,J.,SeparateOpinion:

Courts;JudicialReview;ThejudicialpowervestedintheSupreme
CourtbyArt.VIII,1extendsonlytocasesandcontroversiesforthe
determinationofsuchproceedingsasareestablishedbylawforthe
protectionorenforcementofrights,ortheprevention,redressor
punishmentofwrongs.ThejudicialpowervestedinthisCourtbyArt.
VIII,1extendsonlytocasesandcontroversiesforthedeterminationof
suchproceedingsasareestablishedbylawfortheprotectionor
enforcementofrights,ortheprevention,redressorpunishmentof
wrongs.Inthiscase,thepurposeofthesuitisnottoenforceaproperty
rightofpetitionersagainstthegovernmentandotherrespondentsorto
demandcompensationforinjuriessufferedbythemasaresultofthe
enforcementofthelaw,butonlytosettlewhattheybelievetobethe
doubtfulcharacterofthelawinquestion.Anyjudgmentthatwerender
inthiscasewillthusnotconcludeorbindrealpartiesinthefuture,
whenactuallitigationwillbringtotheCourtthequestionofthe
constitutionalityofsuchlegislation.Suchjudgmentcannotbeexecuted
asitamountstonomorethananexpressionofopinionuponthe
validityoftheprovisionsofthelawinquestion.
Same;Same;Thestatementthatthejudicialpowerincludesthe
dutytodeterminewhethertherehasbeenagraveabuseofdiscretion
wasinsertedinArt.VIII,1notreallytogivethejudiciaryaroving
commissiontorightanywrongitperceivesbuttoprecludecourtsfrom
invokingthepoliticalquestiondoctrineinordertoevadethedecisionof
certaincasesevenwhereviolationsofcivillibertiesarealleged.Idonot
conceiveittobethefunctionofthisCourtunderArt.VIII,1ofthe
Constitutiontodetermineintheabstractwhetherornottherehasbeen
agraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictionon
thepartofthelegislativeandexecutivedepartmentsinenactingthe
IPRA.Ourjurisdictionisconfinedtocasesorcontroversies.Noone
readingArt.VIII,5canfailtonotethat,inenumeratingthematters
placedinthekeepingofthisCourt,ituniformlybeginswiththephrase
allcases...Thestatementthatthejudicialpowerincludestheduty
todeterminewhethertherehasbeenagraveabuseofdiscretionwas
insertedinArt.VIII,1notreallytogivethejudiciaryaroving
commissiontorightanywrongitperceivesbuttoprecludecourtsfrom
invokingthepoliticalquestiondoctrineinordertoevadethedecisionof
certaincasesevenwhereviolationsofcivillibertiesarealleged.
Same;Same;Thejudicialpowercannotbeextendedtomatters
whichdonotinvolveactualcasesorcontroversieswithoutupsettingthe
balanceofpoweramongthethreebranchesofthegovernmentand
erecting,asitwere,thejudiciary,particularlytheSupremeCourt,asa
thirdbranchofCongress,withpowernotonlytoinvalidatestatutesbut
eventorewritethem.Indeed,thejudicialpowercannotbeextendedto
matterswhichdonotinvolveactualcasesorcontroversieswithout
upsettingthebalanceofpoweramongthethreebranchesofthe
governmentanderecting,asitwere,thejudiciary,particularlythe
SupremeCourt,asathirdbranchofCongress,withpowernotonlyto
invalidatestatutesbuteventorewritethem.Yetthatisexactlywhat
wewouldbepermittinginthiscasewerewetoassumejurisdictionand
decidewholesaletheconstitutionalvalidityoftheIPRAcontrarytothe
establishedrulethatapartycanquestionthevalidityofastatuteonly
if,asappliedtohim,itisunconstitutional.HeretheIPRAissoughtto
bedeclaredvoidonitsface.
Same;Same;FreedomofExpression;ChillingEffect
Syndrome;Theonlyinstancewhereafacialchallengetoastatuteis
allowediswhenitoperatesintheareaoffreedomofexpression
invalidationofthestatuteonitsfaceratherthanasappliedis
permittedintheinterestofpreventingachillingeffectonfreedomof
expression.Theonlyinstancewhereafacialchallengetoastatuteis
allowediswhenitoperatesintheareaoffreedomofexpression.Insuch
instance,theoverbreadthdoctrinepermitsapartytochallengethe
validityofastatuteeventhoughasappliedtohimitisnot
unconstitutionalbutitmightbeifappliedtoothersnotbeforetheCourt
whoseactivitiesareconstitutionallyprotected.Invalidationofthe
statuteonitsfaceratherthanasappliedispermittedintheinterest
ofpreventingachillingeffectonfreedomofexpression.Butinother
cases,evenifitisfoundthataprovisionofastatuteisunconstitutional,
courtswilldecreeonlypartialinvalidityunlesstheinvalidportionisso
farinseparablefromtherestofthestatutethatadeclarationofpartial
invalidityisnotpossible.
Same;Same;Todeclinetheexerciseofjurisdictionwherethereisno
genuinecontroversyisnottoshowtimiditybutrespectforthejudgment
ofacoequaldepartmentofgovernmentwhoseacts,unlessshowntobe
clearlyrepugnanttothefundamentallaw,arepresumedtobevalid.To
decline,therefore,theexerciseofjurisdictionwherethereisnogenuine
controversyisnottoshowtimiditybutrespectforthejudgmentofa
coequaldepartmentofgovernmentwhoseacts,unlessshowntobe
clearlyrepugnanttothefundamentallaw,arepresumedtobevalid.
ThepolestarofconstitutionaladjudicationwassetforthbyJustice
LaurelintheAngaracasewhenhesaidthatthispowerofjudicial
reviewislimitedtoactualcasesandcontroversiestobeexercisedafter
fullopportunityofargumentbytheparties,andlimitedfurthertothe
constitutionalquestionraisedortheverylismota,presented.Forthe
exerciseofthispowerislegitimateonlyinthelastresort;andasa
necessityinthedeterminationofreal,earnest,andvitalcontroversy
betweenindividuals.Until,therefore,anactualcaseisbroughttotest
theconstitutionalityoftheIPRA,thepresumptionofconstitutionality,
whichinheresineverystatute,mustbeaccordedtoit.

PANGANIBAN,J.,SeparateOpinion(Concurringand
Dissenting):

NationalPatrimony;AncestralDomains;AncestralLands;I
respectfullyrejectthecontentionthatancestrallandsandancestral
domainsarenotpubliclandsandhaveneverbeenownedbythe
State.Itrecognizesor,worse,grantsrightsofownershipoverlandsof
thepublicdomain,waters,xxxandothernaturalresourceswhich,
underSection2,ArticleXIIoftheConstitution,areownedbythe
Stateandshallnotbealienated.Irespectfullyrejectthecontention
thatancestrallandsandancestraldomainsarenotpubliclandsand
haveneverbeenownedbytheState.Suchsweepingstatementplaces
substantialportionsofPhilippineterritoryoutsidethescopeofthe
PhilippineConstitutionandbeyondthecollectivereachoftheFilipino
people.Aswillbediscussedlater,theserealpropertiesconstituteathird
oftheentirePhilippineterritory;andtheresources,80percentofthe
nationsnaturalwealth.
Same;Same;Same;Icannotagreetolegitimizeperpetual
inequalityofaccesstothenationswealthortostamptheCourts
imprimaturonalawthatoffendsanddegradestherepositoryofthevery
authorityoftheSupremeCourttheConstitutionofthePhilippines.
Consistentwiththesocialjusticeprincipleofgivingmoreinlawto
thosewhohavelessinlife,Congressinitswisdommaygrant
preferencesandprerogativestoourmarginalizedbrothersandsisters,
subjecttotheirreduciblecaveatthattheConstitutionmustbe
respected.Ipersonallybelieveinaccordingeverybenefittothepoor,the
oppressedandthedisadvantaged,inordertoempowerthem
toequallyenjoytheblessingsofnationhood.Icannot,however,agreeto
legitimizeperpetualinequalityofaccesstothenationswealthorto
stamptheCourtsimprimaturonalawthatoffendsanddegradesthe
repositoryoftheveryauthorityofthisCourttheConstitutionofthe
Philippines.
Same;Same;Same;Thoughlaudableandwellmeaning,IPRA,
however,hasprovisionsthatrundirectlyafoulofourfundamentallaw
fromwhichitclaimsoriginandauthority.RA8371,whichdefinesthe
rightsofindigenousculturalcommunitiesandindigenouspeoples,
admittedlyprofessesalaudableintent.Itwasprimarilyenacted
pursuanttothestatepolicyenshrinedinourConstitutiontorecognize
andpromotetherightsofindigenousculturalcommunitieswithinthe
frameworkofnationalunityanddevelopment.Thoughlaudableand
wellmeaning,thisstatute,however,hasprovisionsthatrundirectly
afoulofourfundamentallawfromwhichitclaimsoriginandauthority.
Morespecifically,Sections3(a)and(b),5,6,7(a)and(b),8andother
relatedprovisionscontravenetheRegalianDoctrinethebasic
foundationoftheStatespropertyregime.
VestedRights;Property;Ownership;BecauseoftheStates
implementationofpoliciesconsideredtobeforthecommongood,all
thoseconcernedhavetogiveup,undercertainconditions,evenvested
rightsofownership.Isubmit,however,thatallFilipinos,whether
indigenousornot,aresubjecttotheConstitution.Indeed,nooneis
exemptfromitsallencompassingprovisions.Unlikethe1935Charter,
whichwassubjecttoanyexistingright,grant,leaseorconcession,the
1973andthe1987Constitutionsspokeinabsoluteterms.Becauseof
theStatesimplementationofpoliciesconsideredtobeforthecommon
good,allthoseconcernedhavetogiveup,undercertainconditions,even
vestedrightsofownership.
NationalPatrimony;AncestralDomains;AncestralLands;Four
hundredyearsofPhilippinepoliticalhistorycannotbesetasideor
ignoredbyIPRA,howeverwellintentioneditmaybe.Verily,as
petitionersundauntedlypointout,fourhundredyearsofPhilippine
politicalhistorycannotbesetasideorignoredbyIPRA,howeverwell
intentioneditmaybe.Theperceivedlackofunderstandingofthe
culturalminoritiescannotberemediedbyconcedingthenations
resourcestotheirexclusiveadvantage.Theycannotbemoreprivileged
simplybecausetheyhavechosentoignorestatelaws.Forhaving
chosennottobeenfoldedbystatutesonperfectinglandtitles,ICCs/IPs
cannotnowmaintaintheirownershipoflandsanddomainsbyinsisting
ontheirconceptofnativetitlethereto.Itwouldbeplaininjusticeto
themajorityofFilipinoswhohaveabidedbythelawand,consequently,
deserveequalopportunitytoenjoythecountrysresources.
 Same;Same;Same;RegalianDoctrine;Theconcertedeffortto
maligntheRegalianDoctrineasavestigeofthecolonialpastmustfail
ourConstitutionveststheownershipofnaturalresources,notin
colonialmasters,butinalltheFilipinopeople.Theconcertedeffortto
maligntheRegalianDoctrineasavestigeofthecolonialpastmustfail.
OurConstitutionveststheownershipofnaturalresources,notin
colonialmasters,butinalltheFilipinopeople.Astheprotectorofthe
Constitution,thisCourthasthesworndutytoupholdthetenetsofthat
Constitutionnottodilute,circumventorcreateexceptionstothem.
Same;Same;Same;Same;SinceRA8371definesancestral
domainsasincludingthenaturalresourcesfoundthereinandfurther
statesthatICCs/IPsowntheseancestraldomains,thenitmeansthat
ICCs/IPscanownnaturalresources.Respondentsinsist,and
theponenciaagrees,thatparagraphs(a)and(b)ofSections3are
merelydefinitionsandshouldnotbeconstruedindependentlyofthe
otherprovisionsofthelaw.But,precisely,adefinitionisastatementof
themeaningofawordorwordgroup.Itdeterminesorsettlesthe
natureofthethingorpersondefined.Thus,afterdefiningatermas
encompassingseveralitems,onecannotthereaftersaythatthesame
termshouldbeinterpretedasexcludingoneormoreoftheenumerated
itemsinitsdefinition.Forthatwouldbemisleadingthepeoplewho
wouldbeboundbythelaw.Inotherwords,sinceRA8371defines
ancestraldomainsasincludingthenaturalresourcesfoundthereinand
furtherstatesthatICCs/IPsowntheseancestraldomains,thenit
meansthatICCs/IPscanownnaturalresources.
Same;Same;Same;Congress,throughIPRA,hasineffect
abdicatedinfavorofaminoritygrouptheStatespowerofownership
andfullcontroloverasubstantialpartofthenationalpatrimony,in
contraventionofourmostfundamentallaw.Butagain,RA8371
relinquishesthisconstitutionalpoweroffullcontrolinfavorof
ICCs/IPs,insofarasnaturalresourcesfoundwithintheirterritoriesare
concerned.Pursuanttotheirrightsofownershipandpossession,they
maydevelopandmanagethenaturalresources,benefitfromandshare
intheprofitsfromtheallocationandtheutilizationthereof.Andthey
mayexercisesuchrightwithoutanytimelimit,unlikenonICCs/IPs
whomaydosoonlyforaperiodnotexceeding25years,renewablefora
likeperiod.ConsistentwiththeConstitution,therightsofICCs/IPsto
exploit,developandutilizenaturalresourcesmustalsobelimitedto
suchperiod.Inaddition,ICCs/IPsaregiventherighttonegotiate
directlythetermsandconditionsfortheexplorationofnatural
resources,arightvestedbytheConstitutiononlyintheState.
Congress,throughIPRA,hasineffectabdicatedinfavorofaminority
grouptheStatespowerofownershipandfullcontroloverasubstantial
partofthenationalpatrimony,incontraventionofourmost
fundamentallaw.
Same;Same;Same;IngivingICCs/IPsrightsinderogationofour
fundamentallaw,Congressiseffectivelymandatingreverse
discrimination.Indigenouspeoplesmayhavelongbeenmarginalized
inPhilippinepoliticsandsociety.Thisdoesnot,however,giveCongress
anylicensetoaccordthemrightsthattheConstitutionwithholdsfrom
therestoftheFilipinopeople.Iwouldconcedegivingthempriorityin
theuse,theenjoymentandthepreservationoftheirancestrallands
anddomains.Buttograntperpetualownershipandcontrolofthe
nationssubstantialwealthtothem,totheexclusionofotherFilipino
citizenswhohavechosentoliveandabidebyourpreviousandpresent
Constitutions,wouldbenotonlyunjustbutalsosubversiveoftherule
oflaw.IngivingICCs/IPsrightsinderogationofourfundamentallaw,
Congressiseffectivelymandatingreversediscrimination.Inseeking
toimprovetheirlot,itwouldbedoingsoattheexpenseofthemajority
oftheFilipinopeople.Suchshortsightedandmisplacedgenerositywill
spreadtherootsofdiscontentand,inthelongterm,fanthefiresof
turmoiltoaconflagrationofnationalproportions.
SocialJustice;Thelawmusthelpthepowerlessbyenablingthemto
takeadvantageofopportunitiesandprivilegesthatareopentoalland
bypreventingthepowerfulfromexploitingandoppressingthem.Peace
cannotbeattainedbybrazenlyandpermanentlydeprivingthemanyin
ordertocoddlethefew,howeverdisadvantagedtheymayhavebeen.
Neithercanajustsocietybeapproximatedbymaimingthehealthyto
placethematparwiththeinjured.Norcanthenationsurviveby
enclavingitswealthfortheexclusivebenefitoffavored
minorities.Rather,thelawmusthelpthepowerlessbyenablingthemto
takeadvantageofopportunitiesandprivilegesthatareopentoalland
bypreventingthepowerfulfromexploitingandoppressingthem.Thisis
theessenceofsocialjusticeempoweringandenablingthepoortohe
abletocompetewiththerichand,thus,equallyenjoytheblessingsof
prosperity,freedomanddignity.

SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari
andProhibition.

ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt.
BarbaraAnneC.Migallos&TroyA.Luna,Raymond
ParsifalA.Fortun&BienvenidoO.Bulataoforpetitioners.
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondents.
Luna,Bonpin,Perez&Associatesforintervenors.
RodolfoC.Rapistaforintervenorsoppositors.
LeileneCarantesSanJuanforSiocoCarioFamily.

RESOLUTION
PERCURIAM:

PetitionersIsaganiCruzandCesarEuropabroughtthissuit
forprohibitionandmandamusascitizensandtaxpayers,
assailingtheconstitutionalityofcertainprovisionsofRepublic
ActNo.8371(R.A.8371),otherwiseknownastheIndigenous
PeoplesRightsActof1997(IPRA),anditsImplementingRules
andRegulations(ImplementingRules).
 InitsresolutionofSeptember29,1998,theCourtrequired
respondentstocomment. Incompliance,respondents
1

ChairpersonandCommissionersoftheNationalCommission
onIndigenousPeoples(NCIP),thegovernmentagencycreated
undertheIPRAtoimplementitsprovisions,filedonOctober
13,1998theirCommenttothePetition,inwhichtheydefend
theconstitutionalityoftheIPRAandpraythat
thepetitionbedismissedforlackofmerit.
OnOctober19,1998,respondentsSecretaryofthe
DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)
andSecretaryoftheDepartmentofBudgetandManagement
(DBM)filedthroughtheSolicitorGeneralaconsolidated
Comment.TheSolicitorGeneralisoftheviewthattheIPRAis
partlyunconstitutionalonthegroundthatitgrantsownership
overnaturalresourcestoindigenouspeoplesandpraysthat
thepetitionbegrantedinpart.
OnNovember10,1998,agroupofintervenors,composedof
Sen.JuanFlavier,oneoftheauthorsoftheIPRA,Mr.
PoncianoBennagen,amemberofthe1986Constitutional
Commission,andtheleadersandmembersof112groupsof
indigenouspeoples(Flavier,etal.),filedtheirMotionforLeave
toIntervene.TheyjointheNCIPindefendingthe
constitutionalityofIPRAandprayingforthedismissalofthe
petition.
OnMarch22,1999,theCommissiononHumanRights
(CHR)likewisefiledaMotiontoInterveneand/ortoAppear
asAmicusCuriae.TheCHRassertsthatIPRAisan
expressionoftheprincipleofparenspatriaeandthattheState
hastheresponsibilitytoprotectandguaranteetherightsof
thosewhoareataseriousdisadvantagelikeindigenous
peoples.Forthisreasonitpraysthatthepetitionbedismissed.
 OnMarch23,1999,anothergroup,composedofthe
IkalahanIndigenousPeopleandtheHaribonFoundationfor
theConservationofNaturalResources,Inc.(Haribon,etal.),
filedaMotiontoIntervenewithattachedCommentin
Intervention.TheyagreewiththeNCIPandFlavier,etal.
thatIPRAisconsistentwiththeConstitutionandpraythat
thepetitionforprohibitionandmandamusbedismissed.
Themotionsforinterventionoftheaforesaidgroupsand
organizationsweregranted.
OralargumentswereheardonApril13,1999.Thereafter,
thepartiesandintervenorsfiledtheirrespectivememoranda
inwhichtheyreiteratetheargumentsadducedintheirearlier
pleadingsandduringthehearing.
Petitionersassailtheconstitutionalityofthefollowing
provisionsoftheIPRAanditsImplementingRulesonthe
groundthattheyamounttoanunlawfuldeprivationofthe
Statesownershipoverlandsofthepublicdomainaswellas
mineralsandothernaturalresourcestherein,inviolationof
theregaliandoctrineembodiedinSection2,ArticleXIIofthe
Constitution:
(1)Section3(a)whichdefinestheextentandcoverageofancestraldomains,andSection
3(b)which,inturn,definesancestrallands;
(2)Section5,inrelationtosection3(a),whichprovidesthatancestraldomainsincluding
inalienablepubliclands,bodiesofwater,mineralandotherresourcesfoundwithin
ancestraldomainsareprivatebutcommunitypropertyoftheindigenouspeoples;
(3)Section6inrelationtoSection3(a)and3(b)whichdefinesthecompositionofancestral
domainsandancestrallands;
(4)Section7whichrecognizesandenumeratestherightsoftheindigenouspeoplesoverthe
ancestraldomains;
(5)Section8whichrecognizesandenumeratestherightsoftheindigenouspeoplesoverthe
ancestrallands;
(6)Section57whichprovidesforpriorityrightsoftheindigenouspeoplesintheharvesting,
extraction,developmentorexplorationofmineralsandothernaturalresourceswithinthe
areasclaimedtobetheirancestraldomains,andtherighttoenterintoagreementswith
nonindigenouspeoplesforthedevelopmentandutilizationofnaturalresourcesthereinfor
aperiodnotexceeding25years,renewablefornotmorethan25years;and
(7)Section58whichgivestheindigenouspeoplestheresponsibilitytomaintain,develop,
protectandconservetheancestraldomainsandportionsthereofwhicharefoundtobe
necessaryforcriticalwatersheds,mangroves,wildlifesanctuaries,wilderness,protected
areas,forestcoverorreforestation.2
Petitionersalsocontendthat,byprovidingforanall
encompassingdefinitionofancestraldomainsandancestral
landswhichmightevenincludeprivatelandsfoundwithin
saidareas,Sections3(a)and3(b)violatetherightsofprivate
landowners. 3

Inaddition,petitionersquestiontheprovisionsoftheIPRA
definingthepowersandjurisdictionoftheNCIPandmaking
customarylawapplicabletothesettlementofdisputes
involvingancestraldomainsandancestrallandsontheground
thattheseprovisionsviolatethedueprocessclauseofthe
Constitution. Theseprovisionsare:
4

(1)Sections51to53and59whichdetailtheprocessof
delineationandrecognitionofancestraldomainsandwhich
vestontheNCIPthesoleauthoritytodelineateancestral
domainsandancestrallands;
(2)Section52[i]whichprovidesthatuponcertificationbythe
NCIPthataparticularareaisanancestraldomainandupon
notificationtothefollowingofficials,namely,theSecretaryof
EnvironmentandNaturalResources,SecretaryofInteriorand
LocalGovernments,SecretaryofJusticeandCommissionerof
theNationalDevelopmentCorporation,thejurisdictionofsaid
officialsoversaidareaterminates;
(3)Section63whichprovidesthecustomarylaw,traditions
andpracticesofindigenouspeoplesshallbeappliedfirstwith
respecttopropertyrights,claimsofownership,hereditary
successionandsettlementoflanddisputes,andthatanydoubt
orambiguityintheinterpretationthereofshallberesolvedin
favoroftheindigenouspeoples;
(4)Section65whichstatesthatcustomarylawsandpractices
shallbeusedtoresolvedisputesinvolvingindigenouspeoples;
and
(5)Section66whichvestsontheNCIPthejurisdictionoverall
claimsanddisputesinvolvingrightsoftheindigenouspeoples. 5

Finally,petitionersassailthevalidityofRuleVII,PartII,
Section1oftheNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.1,seriesof
1998,whichprovidesthattheadministrativerelationshipof
theNCIPtotheOfficeofthePresidentischaracterizedasa
lateralbutautonomousrelationshipforpurposesofpolicyand
programcoordination.TheycontendthatsaidRuleinfringes
uponthePresidentspowerofcontroloverexecutive
departmentsunderSection17,ArticleVIIoftheConstitution. 6

Petitionersprayforthefollowing:
(1)AdeclarationthatSections3,5,6,7,8,52[i],57,58,59,63,
65and66andotherrelatedprovisionsofR.A.8371are
unconstitutionalandinvalid;
(2)Theissuanceofawritofprohibitiondirectingthe
ChairpersonandCommissionersoftheNCIPtoceaseand
desistfromimplementingtheassailedprovisionsofR.A.8371
anditsImplementingRules;
(3)TheissuanceofawritofprohibitiondirectingtheSecretary
oftheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesto
ceaseanddesistfromimplementingDepartmentof
EnvironmentandNaturalResourcesCircularNo.2,seriesof
1998;
(4)TheissuanceofawritofprohibitiondirectingtheSecretary
ofBudgetandManagementtoceaseanddesistfrom
disbursingpublicfundsfortheimplementationoftheassailed
provisionsofR.A.8371;and
(5)Theissuanceofawritofmandamuscommandingthe
SecretaryofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcestocomply
withhisdutyofcarryingouttheStatesconstitutional
mandatetocontrolandsupervisetheexploration,
development,utilizationandconservationofPhilippine
naturalresources. 7

Afterduedeliberationonthepetition,themembersofthe
Courtvotedasfollows:
Seven(7)votedtodismissthepetition.JusticeKapunan
filedanopinion,whichtheChiefJusticeandJustices
Bellosillo,Quisumbing,andSantiagojoin,sustainingthe
validityofthechallengedprovisionsofR.A.8371.JusticePuno
alsofiledaseparateopinionsustainingallchallenged
provisionsofthelawwiththeexceptionofSection1,PartII,
RuleIIIofNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.1,seriesof1998,
theRulesandRegulationsImplementingtheIPRA,and
Section57oftheIPRAwhichhecontendsshouldbe
interpretedasdealingwiththelargescaleexploitationof
naturalresourcesandshouldbereadinconjunctionwith
Section2,ArticleXIIofthe1987Constitution.Ontheother
hand,JusticeMendozavotedtodismissthepetitionsolelyon
thegroundthatitdoesnotraiseajusticiablecontroversyand
petitionersdonothavestandingtoquestionthe
constitutionalityofR.A.8371.
Seven(7)othermembersoftheCourtvotedtograntthe
petition.JusticePanganibanfiledaseparateopinion
expressingtheviewthatSections3(a)(b),5,6,7(a)(b),8,and
relatedprovisionsofR.A.8371areunconstitutional.He
reservesjudgmentontheconstitutionalityofSections58,59,
65,and66ofthelaw,whichhebelievesmustawaitthefiling
ofspecificcasesbythosewhoserightsmayhavebeenviolated
bytheIPRA.JusticeVitugalsofiledaseparateopinion
expressingtheviewthatSections3(a),7,and57ofR.A.8371
areunconstitutional.JusticesMelo,Pardo,Buena,Gonzaga
Reyes,andDeLeonjoinintheseparateopinionsofJustices
PanganibanandVitug.
Asthevoteswereequallydivided(7to7)andthenecessary
majoritywasnotobtained,thecasewasredeliberatedupon.
However,afterredeliberation,thevotingremainedthesame.
Accordingly,pursuanttoRule56,Section7oftheRulesof
CivilProcedure,thepetitionisDISMISSED.
Attachedheretoandmadeintegralpartsthereofarethe
separateopinionsofJusticesPuno,Vitug,Kapunan,Mendoza,
andPanganiban.
SOORDERED.
Davide,
Jr.(C.J.),Bellosillo,Melo,Puno,Vitug,Kapunan,Mendoza,P
anganiban,Quisumbing,Pardo,Buena,GonzagaReyes,Ynare
sSantiagoandDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
a