Cruz v.

Sec of Natural Resources

Facts:
- Petitioner
Petitioners, Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this petition questioning the constitutionality
of R.A. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Acts (IPRA). They question
the provision of the said law that grants Indigenous people their ancestry land, which states that
the said provision of the law amounts to the unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over
lands of public domain which is embodied in the constitution and is better known as the Regalian
Doctrine.
Petitioners also contend that the ancestral lands found within, might contain private lands found
within the said area. 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.
- Respondent
Respondents Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and
Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) filed through the Solicitor
General a consolidated Comment. The Solicitor General is of the view that the IPRA is partly
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to indigenous
peoples and prays that the petition be granted in part.
A group of interveners, composed of Sen. Juan Flavier, one of the authors of the IPRA, Mr.
PoncianoBennagen, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, and the leaders and
members of 112 groups of indigenous peoples (Flavier, et. al), filed their Motion for Leave to
Intervene. They join the NCIP in defending the constitutionality of IPRA and praying for the
dismissal of the petition.
On March 22, 1999, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) likewise filed a Motion to
Intervene and/or to Appear as Amicus Curiae. The CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the
principle of parenspatriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee the
rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous peoples. For this reason it prays
that the petition be dismissed.
On March 23, 1999, another group, composed of the Ikalahan Indigenous People and the
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, Inc. (Haribon, et al.), filed a
motion to intervene with attached Comment-in-Intervention. They agree with the NCIP and
Flavier, et al. that IPRA is consistent with the Constitution and pray that the petition for
prohibition and mandamus be dismissed.
The motions for intervention of the aforesaid groups and organizations were granted.
Issue:
WON the IPRA law is unconstitutional as it deprives the state of its right to own and possess
lands of public domain

Ruling:
Upon the voting of the justices to determine whether the said law is constitutional or not, the
voting was tallied at 7-7, a tied voted. Because of the fact that the majority vote was not
obtained, the case was re-deliberated by the court. However, the re-deliberation yielded the same
results, and as a rule on civil procedure, the said petition should therefore be dismissed, declaring
the law constitutional.
This was a very controversial case, and Justice Puno further explained why this law should be
declared constitutional in his separate opinion. It is embodied in our constitution that all lands of
whatever classification and other natural resources not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the state which is the source of any asserted right to
ownership of land. This is also called Dominium, the state’s capacity to own or acquire property,
Vis a VI, Imperium which is the government authority to possess by the state expressed in the
concept of sovereignty. The IPRA, however, is a law that grants the Indigenous people the
ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and defines such. The
ownership given is in the concept of ownership under customary law which traces its origin to
customary law. The law grants the said ownership because of the fact that the said lands are
possessed by the indigenous people even before colonial times, and even since time immemorial.
Meaning, these lands never became lands of public domain because since time immemorial,
these lands are privately owned by the indigenous people through native titles. However, natural
resources found in these lands still belongs to the ownership of the government and the
indigenous people only has the right to manage such resources.
Therefore, we can therefore conclude that the said law aims to promote the state’s policy to
protect its indigenous people, and recognize that they’re the ones who own those land through
native title which became a customary law.