Francis Beatta M.

Ramirez
LTD

Philippines is undeniably one of the countries that is rich in language and culture,
hence language recognition and cultural identification must, perhaps, be given a priority.
Thus, the existence of Indigenous Peoples Right Act Law (IPRA) of 1997. However,
although such law is existent, it is not entirely recognized and appreciated by a majority
given that for some, such law is unconstitutional by virtue of the time-honored principle,
Regalian Doctrine enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

Accordingly, the article written by Justice Leonen on implications of Constitutional

Challenges to the Indigenous Peoples Right Act of 1997 gives an in-depth analysis
upholding the constitutionality of IPRA Law. It deeply resonates how such law not only
recognizes the rights of our indigenous people; it as well gives justice to the silent
oppression and subtle discrimination of those do not favor such law.

The main contention of people who are against the constitutionality of IPRA Law
rests upon the Regalian Doctrine contemplated as “All lands belong to the State”, it, thus,
implies the ownership of every land in favor of the State; to which Justice Leonen
explained that it is just a product of Spanish colonization to which every land must come
in to their possession; and that, let it be reminded that such time-honored principle is as
well an impact of oppression where lands of our Filipino ancestors coined as indios were
being forcibly taken away. Land titles, at that time, became the basis of grant from the
Spanish crown such that no land titles means no legal right over the land. Arguably,
indigents by nature, need not have any titles indicating their land properties. They are
naturally bound by their own culture, practices, and beliefs in determining their
properties. Considering such, it appears that they treat everyone in their tribe with high
respect as to the lands they could live in, a paperless agreement to which they are the
only ones who could possibly comprehend. Given that they have diverse beliefs, part of
such is their special connection with their own lands. In fact, books on Aboriginal Laws
would state that:

For Aboriginal peoples, country is much more than a place. Rock, tree, river, hill, animal,
human – all were formed of the same substance by the Ancestors who continue to live in
land, water, sky. They have a profound spiritual connection to land. Aboriginal law and
spirituality are intertwined with the land, the people and creation, and this forms their culture and
sovereignty. The health of land and water is central to their culture. Land is their mother, is steeped
in their culture, but also gives them the responsibility to care for it. They "feel the pain of the shapes
of life in country as pain to the self".

Hence, it recognizes how such lands mean to the indigenous people, apparently such
are their ancestral lands, lands which may be ordinary for some as a subject of
appropriation or sale but for the indigenous people such are not only a property but
belongings that are non-negotiable. Lands which constantly give them life, and so they
are as well obliged to take care of it for their future generations.
 Consequently, Justice Leonen’s take on IPRA Law as “sui generis” would support
the situation and connection of these indigenous people that only them could possibly
understand. The special connection that they have with their ancestral lands is paperless
that neither law nor the Constitution could attest to such for it is deeply rooted from their
time immemorial possession. Hence, such ancestral lands are long way-existed prior to
the Spanish colonization. Even then when civilization was introduced in the Philippines
through colonization by different countries, such ancestral lands were symbolically
existent and preserved by the indigenous people and it is rather a by-product of our
indigenous heritage; that neither the colonization nor the civilization would separate such
lands from the indigents. And although the world is at its fast-paced where
modernization persists as the new mantra of development, the rights of the indigenous
people over such lands must still be highly recognized and respected given that such
lands are giving them sustainability in their everyday lives.

Needless to state that the IPRA Law does not in any way deprive or violate anyone’s
rights, such law, as strongly opined by Justice Leonen, only recognizes the rights of the
indigenous over such ancestral lands since these lands have never been and never will be
considered as lands belonging to the State. It has never been a public land, rather these
are personal lands of the indigenous people that must be given priority rights to utilize
such lands in any way.