ROLUSTA, OLIVER JAY A.

BA POLIT SC 4

Polit Sc 12: 6:00-7:00 MWF; P403 September 9, 2013

Jura Regalia All lands belong to the State. Jura Regalia or the Regalian Doctrine is simply the concept that 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. Jura Regalia therefore is nothing but the natural fruit of conquest and a remnant of colonialism. In the case of Cruz v. DENR, somehow the Regalian Doctrine was brushed aside. The Supreme Court here ruled that applying the case of Cario v. Insular Government as a precedent, ancestral domain and ancestral lands never became part of public domain and therefore never belonged to the State. It recognized that indigenous peoples have a valid claim over the lands they claim to be theirs since they have native title over it. Their possession of the land since time immemorial effectively excluded them from the coverage of jura regalia. But La Bugal B'laan v. Ramos is a different story altogether. It seems here that the right of the indigenous peoples particularly members of the B'laan tribe over their environment in general and their right to enjoy their lands in particular was the one which was brushed aside. In upholding the legality of the Mining Act and the constitutionality of the Financial and technical Assistance Agreement, the Supreme Court somewhat sided with the right of the government to regulate the enjoyment of the people of their private property in the guise of "promoting progress and development for the entire country" through mining. But what exactly baffles this author is the apparent disregard and even apathy of the Courts and even the Legislative in general over the rights and welfare of the members of the indigenous community. Yes, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act was upheld. But why is it that it seems like the rights of the indigenous peoples are being sacrificed in order to meet the needs of the majority? As in the case of the B'laan tribe, why does it seem like they are not being asked whether they are pro-mining in their area or not? Don't they deserve to be asked if they approve the idea that some foreign investors would take over their lands and search for gold there and other minerals? Aren't they the ones who are going to get directly prejudiced by such "developments?" But then, jura regalia, all lands belong to the State unless proof to the contrary is presented and proven. Therefore, the members of the indigenous community, those who belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of the society, those who needs representation and special attention, can only hope against hope that someone would stand up for them and will defend their rights over their land and their future within the bounds of law.