EN BANC [G.R. No. 135385. December 6, 2000.] ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA, petitioners, vs.

SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND

MANAGEMENT and CHAIRMAN and COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, respondents. HON. JUAN M. FLAVIER, HON. PONCIANO BENNAGEN, BAYANI
ASCARRAGA, EDTAMI MANSAYANGAN, BASILIO WANDAG, EVELYN DUNUAN, YAOM TUGAS,
ALFREMO CARPIANO, LIBERATO A. GABIN, MATERNIDAD M. COLAS, NARCISA M. DALUPINES, BAI
KIRAMCONNIE SATURNO, BAE MALOMO-BEATRIZ T. ABASALA, DATU BALITUNGTUNG-ANTONIO D.
LUMANDONG, DATU MANTUMUKAW TEOFISTO SABASALES, DATU EDUARDO BANDA, DATU JOEL
UNAD, DATU RAMON BAYAAN, TIMUAY JOSE ANOY, TIMUAY MACARIO D. SALACAO, TIMUAY EDWIN
B. ENDING, DATU SAHAMPONG MALANAW VI, DATU BEN PENDAO CABIGON, BAI NANAPNAY-LIZA
SAWAY, BAI INAY DAYA-MELINDA S. REYMUNDO, BAI TINANGHAGA HELINITA T. PANGAN, DATU
MAKAPUKAW ADOLINO L. SAWAY, DATU MAUDAYAW-CRISPEN SAWAY, VICKY MAKAY, LOURDES D.
AMOS, GILBERT P. HOGGANG, TERESA GASPAR, MANUEL S. ONALAN, MIA GRACE L. GIRON,
ROSEMARIE G. PE, BENITO CARINO, JOSEPH JUDE CARANTES, LYNETTE CARANTES-VIVAL, LANGLEY
SEGUNDO, SATUR S. BUGNAY, CARLING DOMULOT, ANDRES MENDIOGRIN, LEOPOLDO ABUGAN,
VIRGILIO CAYETANO, CONCHITA G. DESCAGA, LEVY ESTEVES, ODETTE G. ESTEVEZ, RODOLFO C.
AGUILAR, MAURO VALONES, PEPE H. ATONG, OFELIA T. DAVI, PERFECTO B. GUINOSAO, WALTER N.
TIMOL, MANUEL T. SELEN, OSCAR DALUNHAY, RICO O. SULATAN, RAFFY MALINDA, ALFREDO
ABILLANOS, JESSIE ANDILAB, MIRLANDO H. MANGKULINTAS, SAMIE SATURNO, ROMEO A.
LINDAHAY, ROEL S. MANSANGCAGAN, PAQUITO S. LIESES, FILIPE G. SAWAY, HERMINIA S. SAWAY,
JULIUS S. SAWAY, LEONARDA SAWAY, JIMMY UGYUB, SALVADOR TIONGSON, VENANCIO APANG,
MADION MALID, SUKIM MALID, NENENG MALID, MANGKATADONG AUGUSTO DIANO, JOSEPHINE
M. ALBESO, MORENO MALID, MARIO MANGCAL, FELAY DIAMILING, SALOME P. SARZA, FELIPE P.
BAGON, SAMMY SALNUNGAN, ANTONIO D. EMBA, NORMA MAPANSA GONOS, ROMEO SALIGA, SR.,
JERSON P. GERADA, RENATO T. BAGON, JR., SARING MASALONG, SOLEDAD M. GERARDA, ELIZABETH
L. MENDI, MORANTE S. TIWAN, DANILO M. MALUDAO, MINORS MARICEL MALID, represented by
her father CORNELIO MALID, MARCELINO M. LADRA, represented by her father MONICO D. LADRA,
JENNYLYN MALID, represented by her father TONY MALID, ARIEL M. EVANGELISTA, represented by
her mother LINAY BALBUENA, EDWARD M. EMUY, SR., SUSAN BOLANIO, OND, PULA BATO B'LAAN
TRIBAL FARMER'S ASSOCIATION, INTER-PEOPLE'S EXCHANGE, INC. CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019
cdasiaonline.com and GREEN FORUM-WESTERN VISAYAS, intervenors. COMMISSION ON HUMAN
RIGHTS, intervenor. IKALAHAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLE and HARIBON FOUNDATION FOR THE
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, INC., intervenor. Barbara Anne C. Migallos & Troy A. Luna
and Raymond Parsifal A. Fortun & Bienvenido O. Bulataw for petitioners. The Solicitor General for
public respondent. Luna Bontin Perez & Associates, Rodolfo C. Raquista for intervenors/oppositors.
Leilene Carantes-San Juan for Sioco-Carino and Family. SYNOPSIS This is a suit for prohibition and
mandamus assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous
People's Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Court en banc
deliberated on the petition and the votes gathered were equally divided with no majority vote
obtained. Seven (7) members voted to dismiss the petition. Seven (7) other members voted to grant
the petition. After redeliberation, the voting remained the same (7 to 7). Thus, the petition, pursuant
to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, was dismissed. SYLLABUS REMEDIAL LAW;
SUPREME COURT; DISMISSAL OF PETITION WHERE VOTES EQUALLY DIVIDED AND MAJORITY VOTE
ARE NOT OBTAINED. — Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition
and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of
Republic Act No. 8371 (R.A. 8371), otherwise known as the Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997
(IPRA), and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (Implementing Rules). After due deliberation on
the petition, the members of the Court voted as follows: Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition.
While Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. 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.