G.R. No.

17165
Wednesday, October 29, 2014

G.R. No. 135385 Case Digest

G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa
vs National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples

Facts:
Petitioners view that the IPRA is partly
unconstitutional on the ground that it
grants ownership over natural resources
to indigenous peoples. They argue that
IPRA and its implementing rules will
amount to an unlawful deprivation of the
State's ownership over lands of the
public domain as well as minerals and
other natural resources, in violation of
the regalian doctrine of the
Constitution.

Petitioners also content that, by

providing for an all-encompassing
definition of "ancestral domains" and
"ancestral lands" which might even
include private lands found within said
areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) violate the
rights of private landowners.

In addition, petitioners question the

provisions of the IPRA defining the
powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and
making customary law applicable to the
settlement of disputes involving
ancestral domains and ancestral lands on
the ground that these provisions violate
the due process clause of the
Constitution.

Finally, petitioners assail the validity

of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the
NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series
of 1998, which provides that "the
administrative relationship of the NCIP
to the Office of the President is
characterized as a lateral but autonomous
relationship for purposes of policy and
program coordination." They contend that
said Rule infringes upon the President’s
power of control over executive
departments under Section 17, Article VII
of the Constitution.

As the votes were equally divided (7 to

7) and the necessary majority was not
obtained, the case was redeliberated
upon. However, after redeliberation, the
voting remained the same. Accordingly,
pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is
DISMISSED.

Notes:

Puno: "When Congress enacted the

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA), it
introduced radical concepts into the
Philippine legal system which appear to
collide with settled constitutional and
jural precepts on state ownership of land
and other natural resources. The sense
and subtleties of this law cannot be
appreciated without considering its
distinct sociology and the labyrinths of
its history. This Opinion attempts to
interpret IPRA by discovering its soul
shrouded by the mist of our history.
After all, the IPRA was enacted by
Congress not only to fulfil the
constitutional mandate of protecting the
indigenous cultural communities' right to
their ancestral land but more
importantly, to correct a grave
historical injustice to our indigenous
people."

The IPRA recognizes the existence of the

indigenous cultural communities or
indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a
distinct sector in Philippine society. It
grants these people the ownership and
possession of their ancestral domains and
ancestral lands, and defines the extent
of these lands and domains. The ownership
given is the indigenous concept of
ownership under customary law which
traces its origin to native title.

Indigenous Cultural Communities or

Indigenous Peoples refer to a group of
people or homogeneous societies who have
continuously lived as an organized
community on communally bounded and
defined territory. These groups of people
have actually occupied, possessed and
utilized their territories under claim of
ownership since time immemorial. They
share common bonds of language, customs,
traditions and other distinctive cultural
traits, or, they, by their resistance to
political, social and cultural inroads of
colonization, non-indigenous religions
and cultures, became historically
differentiated from the Filipino
majority. ICCs/IPs also include
descendants of ICCs/IPs who inhabited the
country at the time of conquest or
colonization, who retain some or all of
their own social, economic, cultural and
political institutions but who may have
been displaced from their traditional
territories or who may have resettled
outside their ancestral domains.

To recognize the rights of the indigenous

peoples effectively, Senator Flavier
proposed a bill based on two postulates:
(1) the concept of native title; and (2)
the principle of parens patriae.

"Sec. 3 a) Ancestral Domains. - Subject

to Section 56 hereof, refer to all areas
generally belonging to ICCs/IPs
comprising lands, inland waters, coastal
areas, and natural resources therein,
held under a claim of ownership, occupied
or possessed by ICCs/IPs by themselves or
through their ancestors, communally or
individually since time immemorial,
continuously to the present except when
interrupted by war, force majeure or
displacement by force, deceit, stealth or
as a consequence of government projects
or any other voluntary dealings entered
into by government and private
individuals/corporations, and which are
necessary to ensure their economic,
social and cultural welfare.

b) Ancestral Lands.- Subject to Section

56 hereof, refers to land occupied,
possessed and utilized by individuals,
families and clans who are members of the
ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by
themselves or through their predecessors-
in-interest, under claims of individual
or traditional group ownership,
continuously, to the present except when
interrupted by war, force majeure or
displacement by force, deceit, stealth,
or as a consequence of government
projects and other voluntary dealings
entered into by government and private
individuals/corporations, including, but
not limited to, residential lots, rice
terraces or paddies, private forests,
widen farms and tree lots."

The rights of the ICCs/IPs to their

ancestral domains and ancestral lands may
be acquired in two modes: (1) by native
title over both ancestral lands and
domains; or (2) by torrens title under
the Public Land Act and the Land
Registration Act with respect to
ancestral lands only.

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 indisputably
presumed to have been held that way since
before the Spanish Conquest.

Article 12

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 co-
production, 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 State shall protect the nation’s

marine wealth in its archipelagic waters,
territorial sea, and exclusive economic
zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-

scale utilization of natural resources by
Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative
fish farming, with priority to
subsistence fishermen and fish workers in
rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements

with foreign-owned corporations involving
either technical or financial assistance
for large-scale exploration, development,
and utilization of minerals, petroleum,
and other mineral oils according to the
general terms and conditions provided by
law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of
the country. In such agreements, the
State shall promote the development and
use of local scientific and technical
resources.

The President shall notify the Congress

of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision, within
thirty days from its execution.

Section 3. Lands of the public domain are

classified into agricultural, forest or
timber, mineral lands and national parks.
Agricultural lands of the public domain
may be further classified by law
according to the uses to which they may
be devoted. Alienable lands of the public
domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands. Private corporations or
associations may not hold such alienable
lands of the public domain except by
lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-
five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area. Citizens of
the Philippines may lease not more than
five hundred hectares, or acquire not
more than twelve hectares thereof, by
purchase, homestead, or grant.

Taking into account the requirements of

conservation, ecology, and development,
and subject to the requirements of
agrarian reform, the Congress shall
determine, by law, the size of lands of
the public domain which may be acquired,
developed, held, or leased and the
conditions therefor.

Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as

possible, determine, by law, the specific
limits of forest lands and national
parks, marking clearly their boundaries
on the ground. Thereafter, such forest
lands and national parks shall be
conserved and may not be increased nor
diminished, except by law. The Congress
shall provide for such period as it may
determine, measures to prohibit logging
in endangered forests and watershed
areas.

Section 5. The State, subject to the

provisions of this Constitution and
national development policies and
programs, shall protect the rights of
indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral lands to ensure their economic,
social, and cultural well-being.

The Congress may provide for the

applicability of customary laws governing
property rights or relations in
determining the ownership and extent of
ancestral domain.

Section 6. The use of property bears a

social function, and all economic agents
shall contribute to the common good.
Individuals and private groups, including
corporations, cooperatives, and similar
collective organizations, shall have the
right to own, establish, and operate
economic enterprises, subject to the duty
of the State to promote distributive
justice and to intervene when the common
good so demands.

Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary

succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold
lands of the public domain.

Unknown at 1:22 AM

Share

No comments:

Post a Comment

‹ Home ›
View web version

Powered by Blogger.