Cruz vs Secretary of DENR
Thus the petition was
Natural Resources and Environmental Law;
Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine
GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000
FACTS:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for
prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers,
assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of
Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the
Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its
implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners
assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the
ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of
the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as
well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in
violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2,
Article XII of the Constitution.
ISSUE:
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?
HELD:
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the
Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the
law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the
natural resources within their ancestral domain.
Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral
domains remains with the State and the rights granted
by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in
their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners
and occupants of the land on which the resources are
found, the right to the small scale utilization of these
resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large
scale development and exploitation.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are
not part of the lands of the public domain. They are
private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title,
which is a concept of private land title that existed
irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However,
the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of
their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership
and does not include the right to alienate the same.
NOTES 1:
This case assailed the constitutionality of RA 8371 and its
IRR on the ground that they amount to an unlawful
deprivation of the State’s ownership over the lands of
the public domain as well as the minerals and other
natural resources therein in violation of the Regalian
doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution. In addition, they contended that the all-
encompassing definition of “ancestral domains” and
“ancestral lands” might even include private lands.
However, as the votes were equally divided 7 to 7, and
the necessary majority was not obtained, case was
redeliberated upon. However after redeliberation, the
voting remained the same.
dismissed and the questioned law was upheld to be
valid.
In the opinion of Justice Puno in his separate opinion, he
discussed that 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. The rights of ICCs/IPs to
their ancestral domains (which also include ancestral
lands) by virtue of native title shall be recognized and
respected.
Like a Torrens title, a CADT is evidence of private
ownership of land by native title. Native title, however, is
a right of private ownership peculiarly granted to
ICCs/IPs over their ancestral lands and domains. The
IPRA categorically declares ancestral lands and domains
held by native title as never to have been public land.
Domains and lands held under native title are, therefore,
indisputably presumed to have never been public lands
and are private. (Exception to Regalian Doctrine).
NOTES 2:
Petitioners here assail the constitutionality of IPRA and
its IRR on the ground that they amount to an unlawful
deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the
public domain as well as minerals and other natural
resources therein, in violation of the Regalian doctrine.
The following were also question:
• All-encompassing definition of ancestral lands and
domains which might even include private lands found
within said area.
• Powers of NCIP and making customary law applicable
to settlement of dispute violating the due process clause.
Justice Puno opined that the law was to address the
centuries old neglect of the IPs and granted ownership
on the basis of native title. Domains and lands held
under native title are therefore, indisputably presumed
to have never been public lands and are private.
• Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not parts of
the public domain.
• Petition was dismissed, RA 8371 is constitutional.