(REGALIAN DOCTRINE) > Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic > In a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives > The theory of jure regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest A. CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATE’S POWER OF DOMINUUM > Capacity of the state to own or acquire property— foundation for the early Spanish decree embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia > This concept was first introduced through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas > The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. > The Law of the Indies was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. This law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims > The Maura Law: was partly an amendment and was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines, which required the adjustment or registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the State B. TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS ENSHRINED IN OUR PRESENT AND PAST CONSTITUTIONS THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PROVIDES UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY THE FOLLOWING— > “ Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into coproduction, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.” > The abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization C. THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN THE 1935 CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES— > Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five

years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. D. THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE Section8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twentyfive years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may by the measure and the limit of the grant. THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN'T NEGATE NATIVE TITLE. THIS IS IN PURSUANCE TO WHAT HAS BEEN HELD IN CRUZ V. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES > Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Indigenous Peoples Rights Act on the ground that it amounts to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain and all other natural resources therein, by recognizing the right of ownership of ICC or IPs to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the basis of native title. > As the votes were equally divided, the necessary majority wasn’t obtained and petition was dismissed and the law’s validity was upheld > Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesn’t negate the native title to lands held in private ownership since time immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of CARINO V. LOCAL GOVERNMENT, where the US SC through Holmes held: “xxx the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land.” > Existence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish crown as an exception to the theory of jure regalia > Justice Puno: Carino case firmly established a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State and was based on the strong mandate extended to the Islands via the Philippine Bill of 1902. The IPRA recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct sector in the society. It grants this people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands and defines the extent of these lands and domains > Justice Vitug: Carino cannot override the collective will of the people expressed in the Constitution. > Justice Panganiban: all Filipinos, whether indigenous or not, are subject to the Constitution, and that no one is exempt from its allencompassing provisions

The facts of Cariño v. Insular Government were brief: The applicant and plaintiff in error is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet, where the land lies. For more than fifty years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1989 (30 Stat. At L., 1754), as far back as the findings go, the plaintiff and his ancestors had held the land as owners. His grandfather had lived upon it, and had maintained fences efficient for the holding of cattle, according to the custom of the country, with some of the fences, it seems, having been of much earlier

the Court held that this power was confined to lands which were admittedly public. The United States government contented that Spain had title to all the lands in the Philippines. The Court disagreed with the United States in a decision that has remained as obscure as it is significant. in accordance with Igorot custom. They all had been recognized as owners by the Igorots. In what is probably the most potent statement ever made on this subject by any Court. and he had used it as a pasture in his turn. and again in 1869-1879. would “amount to denial of native titles throughout an important part of the Island of Luzon.” While the government of the Philippines was empowered to enact rules for perfecting titles to public lands and to issue patents to natives. the dominant purpose of the whites in America was to occupy the land. our first object in the internal administration of the islands is to do justice to the natives. No one. information that lands in Benguet could not be conceded until those to be occupied for sanitarium. at least for the want of ceremonies which the Spaniards would not have permitted and had not the power to enforce. Cariño had no right which it was bound to respect. and he had inherited or received the land from his father. he applied for one under the royal decrees then in force. we suppose would deny that.” The Court explained that the cases involving the land claims of Native Americans were inapplicable in this situation because the acquisition of the Philippines was not like the settlement of the white race in the United States. The “property” under the organic act protected “only that which had become such by ceremonies of which presumably a large part of the inhabitants never heard. alleging ownership. had issued from the Spanish Crown. By the Organic Act of July 1.” The Igorots were never brought under the control of the Spaniards. however stated. In 1901 the plaintiff filed a petition. The Court quipped that it would be almost certain that Spain would not have granted registration of the property that would not have made title valid.” The Court refused to believe that there was an intent to declare every native who had not a paper title a trespasser. the government contended that it had become public (if it was already public). establishing only a possessory title. No document of title. are matters for it to decide. so far consistent with paramount necessities. in 1893-1894. except so far as it saw fit to permit private titles to be acquired. The Court found it hard to believe that the United States interpreted the due process clause not to apply to the inhabitants of Benguet. a decree in 1880 had set a deadline for the registration of these titles..” In the Court’s view. He was not a mere trespasser when the government succeeded as the new sovereign. Since the land in question was not registered. No title would be recognized as valid beyond that date. had been designated-a purpose carried out by the Philippine government and the United States. the reason for our taking over the Philippines was different. The Court further held that there must be a presumption against the government when a private individual claims property as his or her own. It “had not continued for such a length of time and under such circumstances as to give rise to the understanding that the occupants were owners. this did not mean that under the dominion of the United States. nothing seems to have come of it. Regardless of Spain’s position about technical subtleties. who spoke for the Court. When the United States succeeded to the title of Spain. A contrary position. Evidently. and not to exploit it for profit. that process. The Court admitted that Spain had embraced the universal feudal theory that all lands were held by the Crown. Cariño had lost all his rights. not to exploit their country for private gain. by native custom and by long association – one of the profoundest factors in human thought-regarded as their own. the United States had bound itself to administer the islands for the benefit of the inhabitants.date. it held: . unless perhaps. the decision did not stop there. owned the land. etc. and although. However. however. His father had cultivated parts and had used parts for pasturing cattle. 1902… all the property and rights acquired there by the United States are to be administered “for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof. Whatever consideration may have been shown to the North American Indians. The issue according to Justice Holmes was whether the claimant. This set the claims of all the wilder tribes afloat. “How far a new sovereign shall insist upon the theoretical relation of the subjects to the head in the past. and how far it shall recognize actual facts. and that it proposed to treat as public land what they. said that in practice sovereignty may vary in degree. It went so far as to say that the lands will be deemed private absent contrary proof. under the mortgage law. and the lands were registered to him. However. Justice Holmes. an Igorot. it said. It pointed out that the Philippine Bill of 1902 included a Bill of rights that extended those safeguards to all the inhabitants of the Philippines. It maintained that no prescription can be claimed against Spanish empire and even if that was possible.

and the executive and legislative acts in any way that “would amount to a denial of native titles. In concluding. the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership. Holmes wrote that “law and justice require that the applicant should be granted what he seeks. and never to have been public land. Holmes’s language stripped the veneer of nobility that has often been used to justify the dispossession of the Native Americans. or Cariño. This explains Holmes’ refusal to rely upon established doctrines and his liberal interpretation of the Philippine Bill. much less secure most of these areas. colossal capitalist venture meant to take lands at the Indians’ expense.” The Court also mocked Spain’s claims over the entire territory of the Philippines. It would not construe laws to deny the Igorots’ claim. The experience in America was exposed as nothing more than an ignoble. through a refined interpretation of an almost forgotten law of Spain. had no reason to heed. decrees and orders that set out Spain’s laws for her colonies) allowed confirmation of title through prescription. Justice Holmes said that whatever theories justified claims over “discovered” lands. When Congress enacted the Philippine bill of 1902. we analyze the Court’s decision. was his property. The resolution of the case was guided more by the Court’s determination to do justice rather than to apply obscure laws. To begin with. This part of the discussion was surplusage because the lands claimed by Cariño were already held to be private. and should not be deprived of what. the reference to Spanish law was inconsequential. we see no sufficient reason for hesitating to admit the title was recognized in the Philippines in regard to lands over which Spain had only a paper sovereignty. (this time under prescription) had the Court resorted to Spanish laws.” In the following portion of the paper. Such claims could not defeat the claim of Cariño based on laws that Spain had not the power to enforce. and that title was admitted to exist that owed nothing to the power of Spain beyond this recognition in their books. the older decrees and laws cited by the counsel for the plaintiff in error seem to suggest pretty clearly that the natives were recognized as owing some lands. After examining the pertinent laws. to all the inhabitants of the Philippines. “As prescription. The fact that the Igorots had never been assimilated or defeated by the Spaniards must surely have been a substantial consideration. The Court proceeded to explain that the case would have been similarly resolved had the case tried by the laws of Spain. Justice Holmes discussed the issue only to clarify that Cariño’s claim would have also prevailed. by the practice and belief of those among whom he lived. particularly the due process clause.” It might be suggested that there is a difference between the claims in Cariño and those of the North American Indians because the former involved the assertion of an individual’s . even against Crown lands. Cariño made no explicit reference here to either superior culture or religion. was recognized by the laws of Spain. the Court had already characterized the ancestral domain of the Igorots (and by extension. This was the result of the Igorots’ “custom and long association” and “practice and belief.Whatever the law upon these points may be…every presumption is and ought to be against the government in a case like the present. the Court held that We do not discover such clear proof that it was bad by that [Spanish] law as to satisfy us that he does not own the land. unlike in North America. those of other native peoples) as private. The United States had stretched its protection. Ata this point. the Court refused to deprive the Indian of his rights by resorting to the laws of nations within the exclusive sphere of a mere handful of nations. No weight was ever placed upon theories of conquest or alien laws that could not have been known to or understood by a people so removed from the potentates’ game of global takeover. The court said that title will not be extinguished simply because a territory is occupied by an alien force. The Court then noted the second obstacles to the United States’ claim: the United States had not asserted a claim over the entire country. ancient possession being sufficient. Spain did not assume to convert all the native inhabitants of the Philippines into trespassers or even tenants at will. Cariño did not rely on precedent. it extended the Bill of Rights to the territory. The Court further explained that Spanish law was not that stringent in requiring proof. the truth was that conquerors were never able to see. it will be presumed to have been held in the same way even before Spanish conquest. living as he did with his unconquered folk. Thus. It should be noted that the property here was private not because of recognition of title by any sovereign. irrespective of any royal grant. In other words.” Clearly. The Court pointed out that the Recopilacion de Leyes de Las Indias (that body of edicts. It might be proper and sufficient to say that when as far back as testimony or memory goes.

53 Law. continuous. the dissent’s interpretation of the jurisprudence on Native American land rights leaves much to be desired. also misinterpreted the doctrine. Admittedly. and then examine if it has become private under the Public Land Act. its use of the Cariño doctrine was faithful to Holmes’ dictum. for the most part. has a perfect right to dispose of his private property freely without the necessity of securing the consent of any person of the Government…Hundreds and thousands of the non-Christian people of the Philippine Islands have. through their industry and intelligence. And while it originally involved the claim of an individual “under a claim of private ownership” the Philippine Supreme Court later expanded the doctrine to include lands held by a community. However. the non-Christian people have never been given land by the government. become the absolute owners of private property… (Cariño vs. The claimants in Cariño were also considered inferior peoples. In the United States the government distributed lands freely to the American Indians and the dispose of the same without the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. some confusion has attended the application of doctrine. Cariño involved lands which had never been public. They are therefore under no obligation to the Government concerning the land they acquire. Insular Government. However. Cariño vs. A recent case cited both lines of cases without the Court observing any incongruity. Some earlier cases did manage to make a distinction Confusion in the Court had surfaced as early as 1931 in De Palas v.” Unfortunately. and were referred to as “’wilder tribes. and those involving claims within the continental United States. there are presently two streams of cases in the Philippines.Cariño has been cited as authority for the Public Land Act which allows registration of public lands as private possession if the claimant has been in open. In the Philippine Islands. lands held since time immemorial are recognized as private. and lands that are “unoccupied and unimproved. public agricultural lands become private lands and could therefore be titled. 212 U. 549. the case does surface periodically in the discussions of the other branches of government. Cariño has been cited as authority for both. however. This is if the claimant can show that there has been continuous possession thereof for at least thirty years. In the Territories The first claims involved lands in Mexico.Ed. these courts had. While the Cariñodoctrine may be in jurisprudential limbo. 449. 7 Phil. between the two claims.In that case. Fall. 132. as they are glaringly contradictory. considered savage and uncivilized. 41 Phil. Cariño has been consistently upheld by the Philippine Supreme Court. These cases may be divided into those that involved lands in its territories. both as prominent.’” But while they were. The error is obvious. It has even been held that subsequent reclassification of land cannot impair the rights of long-term occupants. the Supreme Court held that the sale of property made by a member of the Bagobo tribe without the approval of the Director of the NonChristian tribes was null and void. Insular Government. having given the Indian his land without cost. In one line. While the Bagobos retained their land. whether non-Christian or Christian. But there is no evidence of this difference in Holmes’ language. In the other line. 935).private right consistent with western property schemes against those asserted by an entire community. it becomes private (and therefore may be titled) after the lapse of the prescriptive period.S. it had a perfect right to impose such condition upon the disposition of the same as the Government might deem wise. Courts in the United States had several occasions to apply the Cariño decision. As will be shown. The Government. Because of this confusion. Neither can the differences in the result can be justified on the ground that the Court viewed the claimants as a “civilized” westernized people. the decision showed the Court was confused about its character. Saito and Madrazo. In these cases. The court made conscious efforts to waive technicalities because the claimants were Igorots. however. from the western legal perspective. the Court would first check if the land is private under the Cariño doctrine. Justice Johnson in the lone dissent explained that: There is absolutely no analogy between the relations of the non-Christian people of the Philippine Islands to the Philippine Government as compared with the relation of the American Indians to the American government. the claimants filed a bill in equity in the . the Court still found it unfair to refuse recognition of their title. In Pueblo de Sta. A citizen of the Philippine Islands. exclusive and notorious possession of the said lands for thirty years. Rosa v. if subtly.. The prescriptive remedy under the Public Land Act admits that the land was initially public.

encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities. United States involved lands in Panama. The lands were part of the territory ceded by Mexico to United States under the Gadsden Treaty. and land resources of a growing population. It cited Cariño to stress that prescription against the Crown was recognized by Spanish laws. marking clearly their boundaries on the ground. but it may be established and was frequently established by prescription.. and there was an assertion that both Spanish and Mexican laws relied upon. and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. maintain peace and order. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions. local government units shall ensure and support. or incidental to efficient and effective provision of the basic services and facilities enumerated herein. Article XII. including those in reservation and watershed areas. Enhance the contribution of natural resources for achieving national economic and social development. v. as soon as possible. 1997 AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE. Basic Services and Facilities. 16. had the record title been established in Mexico to which this pueblo was clearly entitled. those necessarily implied therefrom. and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources. Rosa by the laws and customs of the Indians. Section 4. General Welfare. except by law. measures to prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas. They shall also discharge the functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices devolved to them pursuant to this Code. their predecessors in interest. as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos. entry. It said. open. Local government units shall likewise exercise such other powers and discharge such other functions and responsibilities as are necessary. the Court explained that the title of the Indian inhabitants of a pueblo in Mexico has been recognized not only by the Mexican. an unincorporated association. RA 7160 or Local Government Code SEC. This would have been the proper case to cite Cariño because the claim was premised upon the laws and customs of Indians that antedated the Spanish discovery of America. determine. appropriate. AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES . and those who had been and were in the actual. EO 192. Playa de Flor Land and Improvement CO. The complainants. the court’s reliance upon Cariño was merely to recognize the right of the claimant through prescription. They also alleged that they were forcibly and unlawfully evicted and dispossessed of the lands and improvements by the United States and that the joint owners had not been paid for the property taken from them. The Congress shall provide for such period as it may determine. use. 8371 October 29. Unfortunately. or incidental for its efficient and effective governance. the preservation and enrichment of culture. and lands of the public domain. CREATING A NATIONAL COMMISSION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. No grant was relied upon. 17. PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLE. Series of 1987 Section 4 Mandate The Department shall be the primary government agency responsible for the conservation. among other things. and not to reaffirm the rule that lands held since time-immemorial are private lands. SEC. Promote equitable access to natural resources by the different sectors of the population. plaintiffs alleged that the lands were granted and conceded to the pueblo of Sta. Thereafter. the specific limits of forest lands Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the and national parks. . and adverse possession. alleged that they had acquired title and rights of ownership to specific real property based on prescription under the name of Playa del Flor Land and Improvement Co. management. ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS. as well as powers necessary.Supreme Court in the District of Columbia to restrain the Constitution. such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished. and cultivation of the lands for more than forty years before the Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama. whenever possible. Republic Act No. The second case came some twenty years later.(a) Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue exercising the powers and discharging the duties and functions currently vested upon them. The and settlement as public lands of the United States. To accomplish its mandate. promote health and safety. Such recognition rests not upon title by grant or charter from the crown. The Congress shall. . promote full employment among their residents. it could not be divested by the sort of evidence adduced in this case.” It concluded that. antedating the Spanish discovery of America and the laws of Spain and Mexico.Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted. In resolving the issue. by law. improve public morals. and there was an assertion that both Spanish and Mexican laws recognized such Indian title. notorious. and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. the Department shall be guided by the following objectives that will serve as basis for policy formulation: Assure the availability and sustainability of the country's natural resources through judicious use and systematic restoration or replacement. appropriate. General Land Office from opening its lands to sale. Conserve specific terrestrial and marine areas representative of the Philippine natural and cultural heritage for present and future generations. specifically forest and grazing lands. we think that prior to the cession under the Gadsden Treaty the Papago Indians had acquired a title which was subject to recognition by the government of Mexico. The land was ceded by Spain to the United States. mineral resources. enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology. enhance economic prosperity and social justice. but also by Spanish laws. development. APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR. Increase the productivity of natural resources in order to meet the demands for forest. mineral. “[t]here can be no question.

. Environmental Consideration. . subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines. . Short Title. protected areas. n) To decide all appeals from the decisions and acts of all the various offices within the Commission: o) To promulgate the necessary rules regulations for the implementation of this Act. and p) To exercise such other powers and functions as may be directed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines. . plans." CHAPTER VII NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP) Section 38. The consent of the ICCs/IPs should be arrived at in accordance with its customary laws without prejudice to the basic requirement of the existing laws on free and prior informed consent: Provided. wilderness. i) To convene periodic conventions or assemblies of IPs to review. corporate entity or any government agency. managed and developed for such purposes. said decision must be made in writing. for the benefit of ICCs/IPs and administer the same in accordance with the terms thereof. in such manner consistent with the interest of ICCs/IPs as well as existing laws.to carry out the policies herein set forth. corporation or subdivision thereof on any part or portion of the ancestral domain taking into consideration the consensus approval of the ICCs/IPs concerned. j) To advise the President of the Philippines on all matters relating to the ICCs/IPs and to submit within sixty (60) days after the close of each calendar year. has agreed to allow such operation: Provided. . Section 57. to obtain loans from government lending institutions and other lending institutions to finance its programs. g) To negotiate for funds and to accept grants. plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being of the ICCs/IPs and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. gifts and/or properties in whatever form and from whatever source.Ancestral domains or portion thereof. b) To review and assess the conditions of ICCs/IPs including existing laws and policies pertinent thereto and to propose relevant laws and policies to address their role in national development. A nonmember of the ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years: Provided. Section 44. pursuant to its own decision making process. assess as well as propose policies or plans. Natural Resources within Ancestral Domains. or any other similar authority for the disposition. k) To submit to Congress appropriate legislative proposals intended to carry out the policies under this Act. agreements. e) To issue certificate of ancestral land/domain title. thorough which such assistance may be extended.This Act shall be known as "The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. National Commission on Indigenous Cultural Communities /Indigenous Peoples (NCCP). or in the absence of any condition.To accomplish its mandate. a report of its operations and achievements. and q) To represent the Philippine ICCs/IPs in all international conferences and conventions dealing with indigenous peoples and other related concerns. That the transfer shall be temporary and will ultimately revert to the ICCs/IPs in accordance with a program for technology transfer: Provided. development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains. extraction. finally. protect and conserve such areas with the full and effective assistance of the government agencies. or reforestation as determined by the appropriate agencies with the full participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be maintained. That no ICCs/IPs shall be displaced or relocated for the purpose enumerated under this section without the written consent of the specific persons authorized to give consent. h) To coordinate development programs and projects for the advancement of the ICCs/IPs and to oversee the proper implementation thereof. jurisdiction and function: a) To serve as the primary government agency through which ICCs/IPs can seek government assistance and as the medium. develop. local and international. lease. .Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. f) Subject to existing laws. the NCIP shall have the following powers. utilization. m) To issue appropriate certification as a precondition to the grant of permit. with government or private agencies or entities as may be necessary to attain the objectives of this Act. and subject to the approval of the President. That the all extractions shall be used to facilitate the development and improvement of the ancestral domains. to enter into contracts.The ICCs/IPs shall have the priority rights in the harvesting. The ICCs/IPs concerned shall be given the responsibility to maintain. management and appropriation by any private individual. there shall be created the National Commission on ICCs/IPs (NCIP). Powers and Functions. which are found necessary for critical watersheds. mangroves wildlife sanctuaries. further. programs and projects for the economic. Should the ICCs/IPs decide to transfer the responsibility over the areas. l) To prepare and submit the appropriate budget to the Office of the President. d) To request and engage the services and support of experts from other agencies of government or employ private experts and consultants as may be required in the pursuit of its objectives. That a formal and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community. which shall be the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies. or arrangement. grant. c) To formulate and implement policies. Section 58. forest cover. donations. social and cultural development of the ICCs/IPs and to monitor the implementation thereof.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.