Province of North Cotabato VS.

Republic

GUIDE QUESTIONS:

1. Who are Indigenous People? Read the Indigenous People s’ Rights Act(IPRA) and the case of
Isagani Cruz VS. DENR Secretary on the Constitutionality of the IPRA
Answer: Indigenous people refer to those who share distinctive traditional bonds and
have continuously lived on communally bounded territory under exclusive claims of ownership.

Facts: In the case of Isagani Cruz VS. DENR, also known as the IPRA Case, Rep. Act No. 8371 was
enacted in 1997 for the purpose of recognizing and promoting the rights of indigenous peoples
to their ancestral domains and ensuring their economic, social and cultural well-being. The
respondents and intervenors contended that Art. XII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution did not cover the
ancestral domains because they were not public lands but had been owned by the indigenous
peoples since “time immemorial.” Title had vested in the various tribes as traditional owners
even before the adoption of our past and present charters and could not be revoked by the said
provision. The respondents and intervenors argued that the indigenous people were being
unjustly deprived of the benefits they deserved under the law and so were entitled to the
protection of the Court.

ISSUE: Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

HELD: No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, 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 ICCs/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.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public
domain. They 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 ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a limited form of
ownership and does not include the right to alienate the same.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition simply because it fell short of one vote to
justify its grant by a majority of the 14 justices. (The vacancy created by Justice Purisima’s
retirement had not yet been filled then.) The Court was split down the middle, with 7 holding it
should be dismissed and the other 7 for sustaining it. The resolution ruled:
“As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained, the
case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is
DISMISSED.”
2. Distinguish between land of ancestral domain and land of public domain? (Read a Political
Law Book and Focus on Article XII of the IPRA

Answer: IPRA: The Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts of 1997 ANCESTRAL DOMAINS refer
to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and
natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs,
by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial,
continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement
by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary
dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, and which are
necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare.

RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL DOMAINS

1. Right of Ownership
2. Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources
3. Right to Stay in the Territories
4. Right In Case of Displacement
5. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants
6. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water
7. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations
8. Right to Resolve Conflict

CONFLICTS in Ancestral Land Tenure:

ARTICLE XII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
• “all lands of the public domain … belong to the state”

Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral
lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law
according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall
be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable
lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in
area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not
more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.

Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject
to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands
of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions
therefor.
 3. What is the right to self-determination? (Read relevant portion of the decision)

ANSWER: The right to self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal

self-determination a peoples pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development
within the framework of an existing state. A right to external self-determination (which in this
case potentially takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral secession) arises in only
the most extreme of cases and, even then, under carefully defined circumstances. x x x
External self-determination can be defined as in the following statement from the Declaration
on Friendly Relations, supra, as

The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration
with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by
a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
(Emphasis added)

127. The international law principle of self-determination has evolved within a framework of
respect for the territorial integrity of existing states. The various international documents that
support the existence of a peoples right to self-determination also contain parallel statements
supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to
prevent threats to an existing states territorial integrity or the stability of relations between
sovereign states.

In a historic development last September 13, 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP) through General Assembly Resolution
61/295. The vote was 143 to 4, the Philippines being included among those in favor, and the four voting
against being Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the U.S. The Declaration clearly recognized the right
of indigenous peoples to self-determination, encompassing the right to autonomy or self-government, to
wit:

Article 3

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they
freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.

Article 4

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right

to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local
affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
 Article 5

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal,
economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if
they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

4. Is the MOAD valid?

Answer: NO. The MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws.
Not only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying them, namely, the associative
relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE, are unconstitutional, for the concept
presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to
independence.
While there is a clause in the MOA-AD stating that the provisions thereof inconsistent with the
present legal framework will not be effective until that framework is amended, the same does
not cure its defect. The inclusion of provisions in the MOA-AD establishing an associative
relationship between the BJE and the Central Government is, itself, a violation of the
Memorandum of Instructions From The President dated March 1, 2001, addressed to the
government peace panel. Moreover, as the clause is worded, it virtually guarantees that the
necessary amendments to the Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. Neither
the GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make such a guarantee.
Upholding such an act would amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers
vested only in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people themselves through the
process of initiative, for the only way that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the
amendment process is through an undue influence or interference with that process.