Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
cruz v. sec of denr

cruz v. sec of denr

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 45|Likes:
Published by Layla-Tal Medina

More info:

Published by: Layla-Tal Medina on Nov 11, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/01/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
Cruz v. Secretary of ENR
Philippines -- Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa v. Sec. of Environment andNatural Resources, et al.
in
 
 
Attachment Size
597 KBRepublic of the PhilippinesSupreme CourtManilaEN BANCISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR G.R. No. 135385EUROPA,Petitioners, Present:DAVIDE, JR., C.J.,BELLOSILLO,MELO,-versus- PUNO,VITUG,KAPUNAN,MENDOZA,PANGANIBAN,QUISUMBING,SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT PARDO,AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BUENA,SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND GONZAGA-REYES,MANAGEMENT and CHAIRMAN SANTIAGO, andand COMMISSIONERS OF THE DE LEON, JJ.NATIONAL COMMISSION ONINDIGENOUS PEOPLES. Promulgated:Respondents. x------------------------------------------------x December 6, 2000HON. JUAN M. FLAVIER, HON.PONCIANO BENNAGEN,BAYANI ASCARRAGA, EDTAMIMANSAYANGAN, BASILIOWANDAG, EVELYN DUNUAN,YAOM TUGAS, ALFREMOCARPIANO, LIBERATO A. GABIN,MATERNIDAD M. COLAS,NARCISA M. DALUPINES, BAIKIRAM-CONNIE SATURNO, BAEMALOMO-BEATRIZ T. ABASALA,DATU BALITUNGTUNG-ANTONIOD. LUMANDONG, DATUMANTUMUKAW TEOFISTOSABASALES, DATU EDUARDOBANDA, DATU JOEL UNAD, DATURAMON BAYAAN, TIMUAY JOSEANOY, TIMUAY MACARIO D.SALACAO, TIMUAY EDWIN B.ENDING, DATU SAHAMPONGMALANAW VI, DATU BENPENDAO CABIGON, BAINANAPNAY-LIZA SAWAY, BAIINAY DAYA-MELINDA S.REYMUNDO, BAI TINANGHAGAHELINITA T. PANGAN, DATUMAKAPUKAW ADOLINO L.SAWAY, DATU MAUDAYAW-CRISPEN SAWAY, VICKYMAKAY, LOURDES D. AMOS,GILBERT P. HOGGANG, TERESAGASPAR, MANUEL S. ONALAN,MIA GRACE L. GIRON, ROSEMARIEG. PE, BENITO CARINO, JOSEPHJUDE CARANTES, LYNETTECARANTES-VIVAL, LANGLEYSEGUNDO, SATUR S. BUGNAY,CARLING DOMULOT,ANDRES MENDIOGRIN, LEOPOLDOABUGAN, VIRGILIO CAYETANO,CONCHITA G. DESCAGA, LEVYESTEVES, ODETTE G. ESTEVEZ,RODOLFO C. AGUILAR, MAUROVALONES, PEPE H. ATONG,OFELIA T. DAVI, PERFECTO B.GUINOSAO, WALTER N. TIMOL,
 
2
Cruz v. Secretary of ENR
MANUEL T. SELEN, OSCARDALUNHAY, RICO O. SULATAN,RAFFY MALINDA, ALFREDOABILLANOS, JESSIE ANDILAB,MIRLANDO H. MANKULINTAS,SAMIE SATURNO, ROMEO A.LINDAHAY, ROEL S. MANSANG-CAGAN, PAQUITO S. LIESES,FILIPE G. SAWAY, HERMINIAS. SAWAY, JULIUS S. SAWAY,LEONARDA SAWAY, JIMMYUGYUB, SALVADOR TIONGSON,VENANCIO APANG, MADIONMALID, SUKIM MALID, NENENGMALID, MANGKATADONGAUGUSTO DIANO, JOSEPHINEM. ALBESO, MORENO MALID,MARIO MANGCAL, FELAYDIAMILING, SALOME P. SARZA,FELIPE P. BAGON, SAMMYSALNUNGAN, ANTONIO D.EMBA, NORMA MAPANSAGONOS, ROMEO SALIGA, SR.,JERSON P. GERADA, RENATOT. BAGON, JR., SARINGMASALONG, SOLEDAD M.GERARDA, ELIZABETH L.MENDI, MORANTE S. TIWAN,DANILO M. MALUDAO, MINORSMARICEL MALID, representedby her father CORNELIO MALID,MARCELINO M. LADRA, repre-sented by her father MONICO D.LADRA, JENNYLYN MALID, rep-Resented by her father TONYMALID, ARIEL M. EVANGELISTA,Represented by her mother LINAYBALBUENA, EDWARD M. EMUY,SR., SUSAN BOLANIO, OND,
PULA BATO B‟LAAN TRIBALFARMER‟S ASSOCIATION,
INTER-
PEOPLE‟S EXCHANGE, INC. and
 GREEN FORUM-WESTERNVISAYAS.Intervenors. x-------------------------------------------------xCOMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,Intervenor. x-------------------------------------------------xIKALAHAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLEand HARIBON FOUNDATION FORTHE CONSERVATION OF NATURALRESOURCES, INC.Intervenor. x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------xRESOLUTIONPer Curiam:Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition andmandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certainprovisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (R.A. 8371), otherwise known as theIndigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing Rules andRegulations (Implementing Rules).In its resolution of September 29, 1998, the Court required respondents tocomment. In compliance, respondents Chairperson and Commissioners of theNational Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the government agencycreated under the IPRA to implement its provisions, filed on October 13, 1998their Comment to the Petition, in which they defend the constitutionality of theIPRA and pray that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit.On October 19, 1998, respondents Secretary of the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Secretary of the Departmentof Budget and Management (DBM) filed through the Solicitor General aconsolidated Comment. The Solicitor General is of the view that the IPRA ispartly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over naturalresources to indigenous peoples and prays that the petition be granted inpart.On November 10, 1998, a group of intervenors, composed of Sen. Juan Flavier,one of the authors of the IPRA, Mr. Ponciano Bennagen, a member of the 1986
 
3
Cruz v. Secretary of ENR
Constitutional Commission, and the leaders and members of 112 groups ofindigenous peoples (Flavier, et. Al), filed their Motion for Leave to Intervene.They join the NCIP in defending the constitutionality of IPRA and praying for thedismissal of the petition.On March 22, 1999, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) likewise filed aMotion to Intervene and/or to Appear as Amicus Curiae. The CHR asserts thatIPRA is an expression of the principle of parens patriae and that the State hasthe responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at aserious disadvantage like indigenous peoples. For this reason it prays that thepetition be dismissed.On March 23, 1999, another group, composed of the Ikalahan IndigenousPeople and the Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources,Inc. (Haribon, et al.), filed a Motion to Intervene with attached Comment-in-Intervention. They agree with the NCIP and Flavier, et al. that IPRA is consistentwith the Constitution and pray that the petition for prohibition and mandamusbe dismissed.The motions for intervention of the aforesaid groups and organizations weregranted.Oral arguments were heard on April 13, 1999. Thereafter, the parties andintervenors filed their respective memoranda in which they reiterate thearguments adduced in their earlier pleadings and during the hearing.Petitioners assail the constitutionally of the following provisions of the IPRA andits Implementing Rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful
deprivation of the State‟s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as
minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regaliandoctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution:
“(1) Section
3(a) which defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains,and Section 3(b) which, in turn, defines ancestral lands;
“(2) Section 5, in relation to section 3(a), which provides that ancestral
domains including inalienable public lands, bodies of water, mineral and other resources found within ancestral domains are private but community propertyof the indigenous peoples;
“(3) Section 6 in relation to Section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the
composition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands;
“(4) Sec
tion 7 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenouspeoples over the ancestral domains;
“(5) Section 8 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous
peoples over the ancestral lands;
“(6) Section 57 which provides for priorit
y rights of the indigenous peoples inthe harvesting, extraction, development or exploration of minerals and other natural resources within the areas claimed to be their ancestral domains, andthe right to enter into agreements with nonindigenous peoples for thedevelopment and utilization of natural resources therein for a period notexceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years; and
“(7) Section 58 which gives the indigenous peoples the responsibility to
maintain, develop, protect and conserve the ancestral domains and portionsthereof which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves,wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover or reforestation.Petitioners also 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) violate the rightsof private landowners.In addition, petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA defining the powersand jurisdiction of the NICP and making customary law applicable to thesettlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands on theground that these provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution.These provisions are:
“(1) Sections 51 to 53 and 59 which detail the process of delineation and
recognition of ancestral domains and which vest on the NCIP the soleauthority to delineate ancestral domains and ancestral lands;
“(2) Section 52[i] which provides th
at upon certification by the NICP that aparticular area is an ancestral domain and upon notification to the followingofficials, namely, the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources,Secretary of Interior and Local Governments, Secretary of Justice andCommissioner of the National Development Corporation, the jurisdiction ofsaid officials over said area terminates;
“(3) Section 63 which provides the customary law, traditions and practices of
indigenous peoples shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->