Separate Opinion of Justice Puno in Cruz v.

Secretary of DENR
History of Philippine Land Laws
Facts:
In 1997, RA 8371 (Indigenous Peoples Rights Act/IPRA) was passed. Isagani Cruz
and Cesar Europa filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus, questioning the
constitutionality of certain provisions of IPRA: a) It allows the indigenous
people/cultural community to OWN NATURAL RESOURCES ; b) It defines ancestral
lands and ancestral domains in such a way that it may include private lands owned
by other individuals; c) It categorizes ancestral lands and domains held by native
title as never to have been public land; d) It violates due process in allowing NCIP
(National Commission on Indigenous Peoples) to take jurisdiction over IP land
disputes and making customary law apply to these. In the first deliberation of the
SC, the votes were 77, so the case was redeliberated upon.
Issue:
Did the IPRA violate the Regalian Theory?
IPRA:
Under the IPRA law, lands which have not been registered before, if granted with a
CADT/CALT, will be recognized as privately owned by the IPs from the beginning
thus, has never been part of public domain.
B. Regalian Theory:
Lands which has not been recognized as privately owned belongs to the State
Held:
No Final Decision. Petition dismissed due to lack of votes; Law remained valid and
constitutional (7to grant 7 to dismiss).
Justice Punos Separate Opinion:
The IPRA Law DID NOT VIOLATE the Regalian Theory
1. These lands claimed by the IPs have long been theirs BY VIRTUE OF NATIVE
TITLE; they have lived there even before the Spanish colonization. Native
title refers to ICCs/IPs preconquest rights to lands and domains held under a
claim of private ownership as far back as memory reaches. These lands are
deemed never to have been public lands and are indisputable presumed to
have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.
2. AND Native Title is an Exception to the Regalian Doctrine: ... Oh Cho vs
Director of Lands: This exception would be any land that should have been
in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessorsininterest since
time immemorial
3. Native Titles provide a different Type of Private Ownership Sec. 5. Indigenous
concept of ownership. Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the view
that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the
material bases of their cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership
generally holds that ancestral domains are the ICCs/IPs private but
community property which belongs to all generations and therefore cannot be
sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable traditional resource
rights.

4. It complies with Regalian Doctrine: Natural Sources within ancestral domains

are not owned by the IPs * The IPs claims are limited to lands, bodies of
water traditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places,
traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them
at any time within the domains; * IPRA did not mention that the IPs also own
all the other natural resources found within the ancestral domains