You are on page 1of 5

ARTICLE XII National Economy and Patrimony Section 1.

The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged. The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices. In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.

Three fold goals of the national economy: Equity, a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth Growth, a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by a nation for the benefit of the people Productivity, capacity or degree of effectiveness for making greater output out of every unit of input employed.

Strategies to accomplish goals: 1.To develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos 2.Promote industrialization and full employment 3.Protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition 4.To give all economic sectors optimum opportunity to develop 5.Encourage private enterprises, cooperatives and similar collective organizations

The Regalian Doctrine Imperium, government auhoroity expressed through sovereignty Dominium, capacity of the state to own or acquire property Jura Regalia, that all lands were held from the crown Ownership is vested in the state, not in the head of the state. All lands that were not acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession and occupant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial LIMITS Only agricultural lands of the public domain may be alienated Exploration, development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the state either by directly undertaking such EDU or through co-production, joint venture or production sharing agreements All agreements with qualified private sector may be for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for another 25 years The use and enjoyment of the marine wealth of the archipelagic waters, territorial sea, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone shall be reserved for Filipino citizens Utilization of natural resources in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons may be allowed on a small scale to Filipino citizens or cooperatives THE IPRA CASE CRUZ V. SEC. OF DENR, et al. Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus, assailing constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. And its Implementing Rules and Regulations Some provisions of the IPRA amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownersip over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalia doctrine embodies in Sec

2, Article XII of the Constitution: 1.Section 3(a) defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains, Section 3(b) defines ancestral lands 2.Section 5, Ancestral domains, inalienable public lands, bodies of water, mineral and other resources found within ancestral domains are private but community property of the indigenous peoples 3. Section 6 defines composition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands 4.Section 7 rights of IPs over ancestral domains 5.Section 8 rights of IPs over ancestral lands 6.Section 57 which provides for priority rights of IPs in benefits over natural resources within the areas they claim, right to enter into agreements with non-IPs for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years 7.Section 58 which gives IPs responsibility over the area they claim All encompassing definition of AL and AD violate rights of private landowners Petitioners question provision of the IPRA defining the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving AL and AD on the ground that these provisions violate the due process clause. Section 51-53, 59, process of delineation and recognition of AD, vest on NCIP the sole authority to delineate AD and AL Section 52 Upon certification from NCIP that a particular area is an AD, the jurisdiction of other officials over said land terminates Section 63, customary law shall be applied first, in case of doubt / ambiguity in the interpretation thereof shall be resolved in favor of the IPs Customary law shall be used Section 66 NCIP has jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of the IPs Petitioners assail validity of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP

administrative order #1, series of 1998, which provides that the administrative relation of the NCIP to the office of the president is characterized as a lateral but autonomous relationship for purposes of policy and program coordination. As the votes were equally divided 7 to 7, the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. After redeliberation, voting remained the same. Pursuant to Tule 56, Section 7, of the rules of civil procedure, the petition is dismissed. PUNO provisions of the IPRA do not contravene the constitution Ancestral domains 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 through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial Ancestral lands refers to lands occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessor-ininterest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously to the present Native title refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far bak as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands Carino v. Insular government Carino was awarded his land. The decision largely rested on the North American constitutionalists concept of due process as well as the pronounced policy to do justice to the natives, Carino is the only case that specifically and categorically recognizes native title In light of the Carino case, AL and AD are not part of the lands of public domain, they are private Public domain: agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks

Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral domains ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to manage and conserve them for future generations, benefit and share the profits from their allocation utilization, and negotiate the terms and conditions for their exploration for the purpose of ensuring ecological environmental protection and conservation measures stewardship Alienation of natural resources SANTA ROSA MINING CO. V. LEIDO, JR. Petitioner assails validity of Presidential Decree No 1214 which requires holders of subsisting and valid patentable mining claims located under the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 to file a mining lease application within one year from the approval of the decree. Petitioner accordingly filed a mining lease application, but under protest Petitioner contends tthat its 50 mining claims had already been declared as its own private and exclusive property by a judgment of the CFI. Also, that they already had a vested right over its mining claims even before PD1214 Respondents claim that petitioner did not exhaust all administrative remedies. They also cited the pendency of petitioners appeal with the office of the president, of the ruling of the respondent secretary of natural resources which stated that 44 of the mining claims were void for lack of valid tie points as required under the Philippine Bill of 1902, and that all the mining claims have been abandoned and cancelled for petitioners non compliance. W/N property right is absolute Decision: Property right is not absolute but is merely a possessory right. Petitioners claims are still unpatented. They can be lost through abandonment of forfeiture or they may be revoked for valid legal grounds. W/N PD1214 is unconstitutional