Cruz v.

Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

KAPUNAN Separate Opinion = DISMISS

1. Regalian theory does not negate native title to lands held in private
ownership since time immemorial
2. IPRA definition of ancestral domain does not ipso facto convert such natural
resources as private property of indigenous people
3. Private but community property is merely descriptive of IP concept of
ownership (cannot be sold, disposed, or destroyed, unlike in the Civil Code)
4. Native title to natural resources not recognized in PH
5. Natural resources still owned by the State
6. Art XII Sec 2 cannot be construed as prohibition against utilization of natural
resources without states direct participation
7. IPRA enactment does not annul any Torrens titles within areas claimed as
ancestral lands or ancestral domains
8. Use of customary law not absolute

To recapitulate

1. IPRA affirming IP ownership of ancestral lands and domains by native titles

does not diminish State ownership of lands = because said ancestral alands
and domains are considered private land and not part of public domain
(Carino v. Insular Government)
2. Vesting ownership over minerals, mineral lands, and other natural resources
is not violated by IPRAs grant of rights to IPs to use natural resources = but
the state still has full control over EDU of natural rsources under exisiting
laws
3. IPRA protects vested rights of IP or non-IP persons

MENDOZA Separate Opinion = DISMISS

There is no actual case or controversy. IPRA is being attacked on its face, but
it is not a free speech measure.

PANGANIBAN Concurring and Separate Opinion = GRANT

1. I reject the contention that ALs and Ads are not public lands and have never
been owned by the State (see Art XII Sec 2!)
2. Social justicethere should be equal access to the nations wealth
3. IPRA contravenes the Regalian Doctrine enshrined in the Constitution
4. Vested rights of ownershipIP or non-IPhad to be given up to implement
State policies for the common good
5. Ownership of natural resources are vested in all Filipinos
6. IPs can own natural resources because of AD definition
7. IPRA allowed a favored a minority group (for them to EDU natural resources,
which is reserved only for the State?)
8. Hence, reverse discrimination
9. Law must help the powerless by enabling them to take advantage of
opportunities