WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE REGALIA?

(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 STATES 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 States 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
wasnt obtained and petition was dismissed and the laws
validity was upheld
> Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesnt 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 Cario 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

date. His father had cultivated parts and had used parts for

of ceremonies which the Spaniards would not have permitted

pasturing cattle, and he had used it as a pasture in his turn.

and had not the power to enforce.

They all had been recognized as owners by the Igorots, and

he had inherited or received the land from his father, in
accordance with Igorot custom. No document of title,
however, had issued from the Spanish Crown, and although,
in 1893-1894, and again in 1869-1879, he applied for one
under the royal decrees then in force, nothing seems to have
come of it, unless perhaps, information that lands in Benguet
could not be conceded until those to be occupied for
sanitarium, etc., had been designated-a purpose carried out
by the Philippine government and the United States. In 1901
the plaintiff filed a petition, alleging ownership, under the
mortgage law, and the lands were registered to him, that
process, establishing only a possessory title, it said.

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. Whatever
consideration may have been shown to the North American
Indians, the dominant purpose of the whites in America was
to occupy the land. Evidently, however stated, the reason for
our taking over the Philippines was different. No one, we
suppose would deny that, so far consistent with paramount
necessities, our first object in the internal administration of
the islands is to do justice to the natives, not to exploit their
country for private gain. By the Organic Act of July 1, 1902
all the property and rights acquired there by the United

The issue according to Justice Holmes was whether the

States are to be administered for the benefit of the

claimant, an Igorot, owned the land. The United States

inhabitants thereof.

government contented that Spain had title to all the lands in

the Philippines, except so far as it saw fit to permit private
titles to be acquired. It maintained that no prescription can be
claimed against Spanish empire and even if that was
possible, a decree in 1880 had set a deadline for the
registration of these titles. No title would be recognized as
valid beyond that date. Since the land in question was not
registered, the government contended that it had become
public (if it was already public). When the United States
succeeded to the title of Spain, Cario had no right which it
was bound to respect. The Court disagreed with the United
States in a decision that has remained as obscure as it is
significant.

In the Courts view, the United States had bound itself to

administer the islands for the benefit of the inhabitants, and
not to exploit it for profit. However, the decision did not stop
there. 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. The Court found it hard to
believe that the United States interpreted the due process
clause not to apply to the inhabitants of Benguet. 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, and that it proposed
to treat as public land what they, by native custom and by
long association one of the profoundest factors in human

The Court admitted that Spain had embraced the universal

thought-regarded as their own.

feudal theory that all lands were held by the Crown.

However, Justice Holmes, who spoke for the Court, said that
in practice sovereignty may vary in degree. 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, are matters for it to decide.

While the government of the Philippines was empowered to

enact rules for perfecting titles to public lands and to issue
patents to natives, the Court held that this power was
confined to lands which were admittedly public. It had not
continued for such a length of time and under such
circumstances as to give rise to the understanding that the

The Igorots were never brought under the control of the

occupants were owners. The Court refused to believe that

Spaniards. The Court quipped that it would be almost certain

there was an intent to declare every native who had not a

that Spain would not have granted registration of the property

paper title a trespasser. This set the claims of all the wilder

that would not have made title valid. Regardless of Spains

tribes afloat. The Court further held that there must be a

position about technical subtleties, this did not mean that

presumption against the government when a private

under the dominion of the United States, Cario had lost all

individual claims property as his or her own. It went so far as

his rights. He was not a mere trespasser when the

to say that the lands will be deemed private absent contrary

government succeeded as the new sovereign. A contrary

proof. In what is probably the most potent statement ever

position, would amount to denial of native titles throughout

made on this subject by any Court, it held:

an important part of the Island of Luzon, at least for the want

Whatever the law upon these points may beevery

Cario did not rely on precedent. Justice Holmes said that

presumption is and ought to be against the government in a

whatever theories justified claims over discovered lands,

case like the present. It might be proper and sufficient to say

the truth was that conquerors were never able to see, much

that when as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land

less secure most of these areas. The fact that the Igorots had

has been held by individuals under a claim of private

never been assimilated or defeated by the Spaniards must

ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same

surely have been a substantial consideration. The court said

way even before Spanish conquest, and never to have been

that title will not be extinguished simply because a territory is

public land.

occupied by an alien force.

The Court proceeded to explain that the case would have

Holmess language stripped the veneer of nobility that has

been similarly resolved had the case tried by the laws of

often been used to justify the dispossession of the Native

Spain. After examining the pertinent laws, the Court held that

Americans. The experience in America was exposed as

We do not discover such clear proof that it was bad by that

nothing more than an ignoble, colossal capitalist venture

[Spanish] law as to satisfy us that he does not own the land.

meant to take lands at the Indians expense. Cario made no

To begin with, the older decrees and laws cited by the

explicit reference here to either superior culture or religion.

counsel for the plaintiff in error seem to suggest pretty clearly

that the natives were recognized as owing some lands,
irrespective of any royal grant. In other words, Spain did not
assume to convert all the native inhabitants of the Philippines
into trespassers or even tenants at will.

The Court then noted the second obstacles to the United

States claim: the United States had not asserted a claim
over the entire country. When Congress enacted the
Philippine bill of 1902, it extended the Bill of Rights to the
territory. The United States had stretched its protection,

The Court pointed out that the Recopilacion de Leyes de Las

particularly the due process clause, to all the inhabitants of

Indias (that body of edicts, decrees and orders that set out

the Philippines. Ata this point, the Court had already

Spains laws for her colonies) allowed confirmation of title

characterized the ancestral domain of the Igorots (and by

through prescription, and that title was admitted to exist that

extension, those of other native peoples) as private. It should

owed nothing to the power of Spain beyond this recognition

be noted that the property here was private not because of

in their books. The Court further explained that Spanish law

recognition of title by any sovereign. This was the result of

was not that stringent in requiring proof, ancient possession

the Igorots custom and long association and practice and

being sufficient.

belief.

As prescription, even against Crown lands, was recognized

The Court also mocked Spains claims over the entire

by the laws of Spain, we see no sufficient reason for

territory of the Philippines. Such claims could not defeat the

hesitating to admit the title was recognized in the Philippines

claim of Cario based on laws that Spain had not the power

in regard to lands over which Spain had only a paper

to enforce, or Cario, living as he did with his unconquered

sovereignty.

folk, had no reason to heed. The resolution of the case was

guided more by the Courts determination to do justice rather

Clearly, the reference to Spanish law was inconsequential.

Justice Holmes discussed the issue only to clarify that
Carios claim would have also prevailed, (this time under
prescription) had the Court resorted to Spanish laws. This
part of the discussion was surplusage because the lands
claimed by Cario were already held to be private.
In concluding, Holmes wrote that law and justice require that
the applicant should be granted what he seeks, and should
not be deprived of what, by the practice and belief of those
among whom he lived, was his property, through a refined
interpretation of an almost forgotten law of Spain.
In the following portion of the paper, we analyze the Courts
decision.

than to apply obscure laws. This explains Holmes refusal to

rely upon established doctrines and his liberal interpretation
of the Philippine Bill. 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. Thus, unlike in North
America, 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. It would not construe laws to
deny the Igorots claim, and the executive and legislative acts
in any way that would amount to a denial of native titles.
It might be suggested that there is a difference between the
claims in Cario and those of the North American Indians
because the former involved the assertion of an individuals

private right consistent with western property schemes

through their industry and intelligence, become the absolute

against those asserted by an entire community. But there is

owners of private property (Cario vs. Insular Government,

no evidence of this difference in Holmes language.

7 Phil. 132; Cario vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449; 53

Law.Ed. 549; 41 Phil., 935).

Neither can the differences in the result can be justified on

the ground that the Court viewed the claimants as a

In the United States the government distributed lands freely

civilized westernized people. The claimants in Cario were

to the American Indians and the dispose of the same without

also considered inferior peoples, if subtly. The court made

the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. The Government,

conscious efforts to waive technicalities because the

having given the Indian his land without cost, it had a perfect

claimants were Igorots, and were referred to as wilder

right to impose such condition upon the disposition of the

tribes.

same as the Government might deem wise. In the Philippine

Islands, however, the non-Christian people have never been

But while they were, from the western legal perspective,

considered savage and uncivilized, the Court still found it
unfair to refuse recognition of their title.

Supreme Court. 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, and lands that are
and

unimproved.

Unfortunately,

obligation to the Government concerning the land they

acquire.

Cario has been consistently upheld by the Philippine

unoccupied

given land by the government. They are therefore under no

some

confusion has attended the application of doctrine.Cario 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, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession of the said lands for thirty years. The
error is obvious. Cario involved lands which had never been
public. The prescriptive remedy under the Public Land Act
admits that the land was initially public. However, it becomes
private (and therefore may be titled) after the lapse of the

Admittedly, the dissents interpretation of the jurisprudence

on Native American land rights leaves much to be desired.
However, its use of the Cario doctrine was faithful to
Holmes dictum. Because of this confusion, there are
presently two streams of cases in the Philippines, both as
prominent, as they are glaringly contradictory. In one line,
lands held since time immemorial are recognized as private.
It has even been held that subsequent reclassification of land
cannot impair the rights of long-term occupants. In the other
line, public agricultural lands become private lands and could
therefore be titled. This is if the claimant can show that there
has been continuous possession thereof for at least thirty
years. Cario has been cited as authority for both. A recent
case cited both lines of cases without the Court observing
any incongruity.

prescriptive period.
Some earlier cases did manage to make a distinction
Confusion in the Court had surfaced as early as 1931 in De
Palas v. Saito and Madrazo.In that case, 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. While the Bagobos
retained their land, the decision showed the Court was

between the two claims. In these cases, the Court would first
check if the land is private under the Cario doctrine, and
then examine if it has become private under the Public Land
Act. While the Cariodoctrine may be in jurisprudential limbo,
the case does surface periodically in the discussions of the
other branches of government.

confused about its character. Justice Johnson in the lone

dissent explained that: There is absolutely no analogy

Courts in the United States had several occasions to apply

between the relations of the non-Christian people of the

the Cario decision. As will be shown, however, these courts

Philippine Islands to the Philippine Government as compared

had, for the most part, also misinterpreted the doctrine.

with the relation of the American Indians to the American

These cases may be divided into those that involved lands in

government.

its

territories,

and those

involving claims

within

the

continental United States.

A citizen of the Philippine Islands, whether non-Christian or
Christian, has a perfect right to dispose of his private

In the Territories

property freely without the necessity of securing the consent

of any person of the GovernmentHundreds and thousands
of the non-Christian people of the Philippine Islands have,

The first claims involved lands in Mexico. In Pueblo de Sta.

Rosa v. Fall, the claimants filed a bill in equity in the

Supreme Court in the District of Columbia to restrain the

Constitution, Article XII, Section 4. The Congress shall, as

soon
as
possible,
determine, by law, the specific limits of forest lands
Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the
and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground.
General Land Office from opening its lands to sale, entry,Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved
and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. The
and settlement as public lands of the United States. The
Congress shall provide for such period as it may determine, measures
plaintiffs alleged that the lands were granted and concededto prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.
to the pueblo of Sta. Rosa by the laws and customs of the
Indians, antedating the Spanish discovery of America and the
laws of Spain and Mexico. The lands were part of the territory

EO 192, Series of 1987

Section 4
Mandate

to cite Cario because the claim was premised upon the laws

The Department shall be the primary government agency

responsible for the conservation, management,
development, and proper use of the country's
environment and natural resources, specifically forest
and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in
reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public
domain, 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.
To accomplish its mandate, 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, whenever possible;
Increase the productivity of natural resources in order to
meet the demands for forest, mineral, and land resources of
a growing population;
Enhance the contribution of natural resources for achieving
national economic and social development;
Promote equitable access to natural resources by the
different sectors of the population;
Conserve specific terrestrial and marine areas representative
of the Philippine natural and cultural heritage for present and
future generations.

and customs of Indians that antedated the Spanish discovery

RA 7160 or Local Government Code

of America. The land was ceded by Spain to the United

SEC. 16. General Welfare. - Every local government unit

shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as
powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient
and effective governance, and those which are essential to
the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective
territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure
and support, among other things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety,
enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of appropriate and
self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve
public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social
justice, promote full employment among their residents,
maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.

ceded by Mexico to United States under the Gadsden Treaty.

In resolving the issue, the Court explained that the title of the
Indian inhabitants of a pueblo in Mexico has been recognized
not only by the Mexican, but also by Spanish laws. Such
recognition rests not upon title by grant or charter from the
crown, but it may be established and was frequently
established by prescription. It cited Cario to stress that
prescription against the Crown was recognized by Spanish
laws. It said, [t]here can be no question, 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. It concluded that, had the record title
been established in Mexico to which this pueblo was clearly
entitled, it could not be divested by the sort of evidence
adduced in this case. This would have been the proper case

States. No grant was relied upon, and there was an assertion

that both Spanish and Mexican laws relied upon, and there
was an assertion that both Spanish and Mexican laws
recognized such Indian title. Unfortunately, the courts
reliance upon Cario was merely to recognize the right of the
claimant through prescription, and not to reaffirm the rule that
lands held since time-immemorial are private lands.
The second case came some twenty years later. Playa de
Flor Land and Improvement CO. v. United States involved
lands in Panama. The complainants, an unincorporated
association, 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.,
their predecessors in interest, and those who had been and
were in the actual, open, notorious, and adverse possession,
use, and cultivation of the lands for more than forty years
before the Treaty between the United States and the
Republic of Panama. 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.

SEC. 17. Basic Services and Facilities. - (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. They shall also
discharge the functions and responsibilities of national
agencies and offices devolved to them pursuant to this
Code. Local government units shall likewise exercise such
other powers and discharge such other functions and
responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to
efficient and effective provision of the basic services and
facilities enumerated herein.
Republic Act No. 8371

October 29, 1997

AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE

RIGHTS
OF
INDIGENOUS
CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, CREATING A
NATIONAL COMMISSION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE,
ESTABLISHING
IMPLEMENTING
MECHANISMS,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the Philippines in Congress assembled::

n) To decide all appeals from the decisions and acts

of all the various offices within the Commission:

CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

o) To promulgate the necessary rules

regulations for the implementation of this Act;

Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997."

p) To exercise such other powers and functions as

may be directed by the President of the Republic of
the Philippines; and

CHAPTER VII
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
(NCIP)
Section 38. National Commission on Indigenous Cultural
Communities /Indigenous Peoples (NCCP). - to carry out
the policies herein set forth, there shall be created the
National Commission on ICCs/IPs (NCIP), which shall be the
primary government agency responsible for the formulation
and implementation of policies, 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.
Section 44. Powers and Functions. - To accomplish its
mandate, the NCIP shall have the following powers,
jurisdiction and function:
a) To serve as the primary government agency
through which ICCs/IPs can seek government
assistance and as the medium, thorough which such
assistance may be extended;
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;
c) To formulate and implement policies, plans,
programs and projects for the economic, social and
cultural development of the ICCs/IPs and to monitor
the implementation thereof;
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;
e) To issue certificate of ancestral land/domain title;
f) Subject to existing laws, to enter into contracts,
agreements, or arrangement, 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, to obtain loans from
government lending institutions and other lending
institutions to finance its programs;
g) To negotiate for funds and to accept grants, donations,
gifts and/or properties in whatever form and from whatever
source, local and international, subject to the approval of the
President of the Philippines, for the benefit of ICCs/IPs and
administer the same in accordance with the terms thereof; or
in the absence of any condition, in such manner consistent
with the interest of ICCs/IPs as well as existing laws;
h) To coordinate development programs and projects for the
advancement of the ICCs/IPs and to oversee the proper
implementation thereof;
i) To convene periodic conventions or assemblies of IPs to
review, assess as well as propose policies or plans;
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, a report of its
operations and achievements;
k) To submit to Congress appropriate legislative proposals
intended to carry out the policies under this Act;
l) To prepare and submit the appropriate budget to the Office
of the President;
m) To issue appropriate certification as a precondition to the grant of permit, lease, grant, or any
other similar authority for the disposition, utilization,
management and appropriation by any private
individual, corporate entity or any government
agency, corporation or subdivision thereof on any
part or portion of the ancestral domain taking into
consideration the consensus approval of the
ICCs/IPs concerned;

and

q) To represent the Philippine ICCs/IPs in all

international conferences and conventions dealing
with indigenous peoples and other related concerns.
Section 57. Natural Resources within Ancestral
Domains. - The ICCs/IPs shall have the priority rights in the
harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any
natural resources within the ancestral domains. 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,
That a formal and written agreement is entered into with the
ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, pursuant to its
own decision making process, has agreed to allow such
operation: Provided, finally, That the all extractions shall be
used to facilitate the development and improvement of the
ancestral domains.
Section 58. Environmental Consideration. - Ancestral
domains or portion thereof, which are found necessary for
critical watersheds, mangroves wildlife sanctuaries,
wilderness, protected areas, forest cover, or reforestation as
determined by the appropriate agencies with the full
participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be maintained,
managed and developed for such purposes. The ICCs/IPs
concerned shall be given the responsibility to maintain,
develop, protect and conserve such areas with the full and
effective assistance of the government agencies. Should the
ICCs/IPs decide to transfer the responsibility over the areas,
said decision must be made in writing. 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, That the transfer shall be temporary and will
ultimately revert to the ICCs/IPs in accordance with a
program for technology transfer: Provided, further, 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.