Isagani Cruz vs.
Secretary of DENR Petitioners argued that certain
G.R. No. 135385; December 6, 2000; EN
BANC PER CURIAM
Topic: Sovereignty
Doctrine: The state has the right to
govern and the right to own properties
and may regulate the exploitation,
development and utilization of its
natural resources as it may deem fit in
exercise of the general welfare clause.
Facts:
This is a suit for prohibition and
mandamus assailing the constitutionality
of certain provisions of of R.A. 8371,
otherwise known as Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its
Implementing Rules.
Petitioners:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar
Europa brought this suit for prohibition
and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers,
assailing the constitutionality of
certain provisions of R.A. 8371 IPRA,
and its IRR.
provisions of IPRA 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. Such violations
are, among others: it provides for
rights of indigenous people over the
ancestral domains and its right to enter
into agreements with nonindigenous
peoples for the development and
utilization of natural resources
Petitioners also contented that, by
providing for an all-encompassing
definition of "ancestral domains" and
"ancestral lands" which might even
include private lands found within said
areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) violate
the rights of private landowners.
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 Admin 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." They contend that said
Rule infringes upon the President’s
power of control over executive
departments under Section 17, Article
VII of the Constitution.
Respondents and Intervenors:
Respondents Chairperson and
Commissioners of the National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the
government agency created under the IPRA
to implement its provisions, filed their
comment, in which they defend the
constitutionality of the IPRA and pray
that the petition be dismissed for lack
of merit.
Respondents Secretary of the DENR and
Secretary of the 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 intervenors, composed of Sen.
Juan Flavier, one of the authors of the
IPRA, Mr. Ponciano Bennagen, a member of
the 1986 Constitutional Commission, and
the leaders and members of 112 groups of
indigenous peoples (Flavier, et. al),
joined the NCIP in defending the
constitutionality of IPRA.
CHR likewise intervened as Amicus
Curiae. The CHR asserts that IPRA is an
expression of the principle of parens
patriae 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,
Haribon, et al., also intervened.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.
All the motions for intervention were
granted.
ISSUE:
WON certain provisions of IPRA with
respect to ancestral lands are
unconstitutional
HELD: (Constitutional)
Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition
and 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.
Separate Opinion
(Note: Focus on Justice Puno’s Opinion
because it falls under the topic of
sovereignty)
Justice Puno:
The capacity of the State to own or
acquire property is the state's power
of dominium. This was the foundation for
the early Spanish decrees embracing the
feudal theory of jura regalia. The
"Regalian Doctrine" or jura regaliais a
Western legal concept that was first
introduced by the Spaniards into the
country through the Laws of the Indies
and the Royal Cedulas. 
As owner of the natural resources, the
State is accorded primary power and
responsibility in the exploration,
development and utilization of these
natural resources. The State may
directly undertake the exploitation and
development by itself, or, it may allow
participation by the private sector
through co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements. These
agreements may be for a period of 25
years, renewable for another 25 years.
The State, through Congress, may allow
the small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens. For the
large-scale exploration of these
resources, specifically minerals,
petroleum and other mineral oils, the
State, through the President, may enter
into technical and financial assistance
agreements with foreign-owned
corporations.
Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in
the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs
ownership over the natural resources
within their ancestral domains. The
right of ICCs/IPs in their ancestral Ownership over the natural resources in
domains includes ownership, but this the ancestral domains remains with the
"ownership" is expressly defined and State and the ICCs/IPs are merely
limited in Section 7 (a): granted the right to "manage and
conserve" them for future generations,
The ICCs/IPs are given the right to "benefit and share" the profits from
claim ownership over "lands, bodies their allocation and utilization, and
of water traditionally and actually "negotiate the terms and conditions for
occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, their exploration" for the purpose of
traditional hunting and fishing "ensuring ecological and environmental
grounds, and all improvements made protection and conservation measures."
by them at any time within the
domains." It will be noted that this Simply stated, the ICCs/IPs' rights over
enumeration does not mention bodies the natural resources take the form of
of water not occupied by the management or stewardship. For the
ICCs/IPs, minerals, coal, wildlife,  ICCs/IPs may use these resources and
flora and fauna in the traditional share in the profits of their
hunting grounds, fish in the utilization or negotiate the terms for
traditional fishing their exploration. At the same time,
grounds, forests or timber in the however, the ICCs/IPs must ensure that
sacred places, etc. and all other the natural resources within their
natural resources found within the ancestral domains are conserved for
ancestral domains. Indeed, the right future generations and that the
of ownership under Section 7 (a) "utilization" of these resources must
does not cover not harm the ecology and environment
"waters, minerals, coal, petroleuman pursuant to national and customary laws
d other mineral oils, all forces of
potential Section 57 is not a repudiation of the
energy, fisheries, forests or timber Regalian doctrine. Rather, it is an
, wildlife, flora and fauna andall affirmation of the said doctrine that
other natural resources" enumerated all natural resources found within the
in Section 2, Article XII of the
ancestral domains belong to the State.
1987 Constitution as belonging to
the State. It incorporates by implication the
Regalian doctrine, hence, requires that
the provision be read in the light of
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution. Interpreting Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution in
relation to Section 57 of IPRA, the
State, as owner of these natural
resources, may directly undertake the
development and exploitation of the
natural resources by itself, or in the
alternative, it may recognize the
priority rights of the ICCs/IPs as
owners of the land on which the natural
resources are found by entering into a
co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreement with them.
The State may likewise enter into any of
said agreements with a non-member of the
ICCs/IPs, whether natural or juridical,
or enter into agreements with foreign-
owned corporations involving either
technical or financial assistance for
the large-scale exploration, development
and utilization of minerals, petroleum,
and other mineral oils, or allow such
non-member to participate in its
agreement with the ICCs/IPs. If the
State decides to enter into an agreement
with a non-ICC/IP member, the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
shall ensure that the rights of the
ICCs/IPs under the agreement shall be
protected. The agreement shall be for a
period of 25 years, renewable for
another 25 years.
The rights granted by the IPRA to the
ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in
their ancestral domains merely gives the
ICCs/IPs, 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. Section 57
does not mandate the State to
automatically give priority to the
ICCs/IPs. The State has several options
and it is within its discretion to
choose which option to pursue.
Justice Vitug:
The provisions Sections 7 and 57 of the
IPRA, in their totality, are, in my
view, beyond the context of the
fundamental law and virtually amount to
an undue delegation, if not an
unacceptable abdication, of State
authority over a significant area of the
country and its patrimony.—IPRA
effectively withdraws from the public
domain the so-called ancestral domains
covering literally millions of hectares.
The notion of community property would
comprehend not only matters of
proprietary interest but also some forms
of self-governance over the carved-out
territory. This concept is elaborated in
Section 7 of the law which states that
the “rights of ownership and possession
of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains
shall be recognized and protected,”
subsumed under which would encompass the
right of ownership (paragraph a); the
right to develop, control and use lands
and natural resources, including “the
right to negotiate the terms and
conditions for the exploration of
natural resources in the areas for the
purpose of ensuring ecological,
environmental protection and the
conservation measures, pursuant to
national and customary laws;” (par. b);
the right to stay in the territories
(par. c); the right to return to their
abandoned lands. In case of displacement
(par. d); the right to regulate entry of
migrants (par. e); the right to claim
parts of ancestral domains previously
reserved (par. g); and the right to
resolve land conflicts. In accordance
primarily with customary law (par. h).
Concurrently, Section 57 states that
ICCs/IPs shall be given “priority rights
in the harvesting, extraction,
development or exploitation of any
natural resources within the ancestral
domains.” These provisions of IPRA, in
their totality, are, in my view, beyond
the context of the fundamental law and
virtually amount to an undue delegation,
if not an unacceptable abdication, of
State authority over a significant area
of the country and its patrimony.
Justice Kapunan:
Petitioners, as citizens, possess the
“public right” to ensure that the
national patrimony is not alienated and
diminished in violation of the
Constitution. Since the government, as
the guardian of the national patrimony,
holds it for the benefit of all
Filipinos without distinction as to
ethnicity, it follows that a citizen has
sufficient interest to maintain a suit
to ensure that any grant of concessions
covering the national economy and
patrimony strictly complies with
constitutional requirements. Thus, the
preservation of the integrity and
inviolability of the national patrimony
is a proper subject of a citizen’s suit.