ISAGANI CRUZ vs.

SECRETARY
OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES,
Definition of terms

 IPRA law or Indigenous Peoples Right act – Recognizes and defines

the rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their
ancestral domains.
 Ancestral Domain - 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, occupied or
possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors,
communally or individually since time immemorial.
 Ancestral land - refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by
individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs
since time immemorial, by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional
group ownership.
Definition of terms
 Regalian Doctrine – is that all lands of the public domain
belong to the State. ARTICLE XII Section 2.
 Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
 Procedure if opinion is equally divided. Where the Court en banc is
equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had,
the case shall again be deliberated on, and if after such deliberation
no decision is reached, the original action commenced in the Court
shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the judgment or order
appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental matters,
the petition or motion shall be denied.
Facts:

 Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a case for prohibition

and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the
constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No.
8371 or the IPRA law 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
embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
Issue:

 Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional

Ruling:

 Unresolved, Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition sustaining the validity of
the challenged provisions of R.A. 8371. On the other hand, Justice Mendoza
voted to dismiss the petition solely on the ground that it does not raise a
justiciable controversy and petitioners do not have standing to question the
constitutionality of R.A. 8371. while, the other 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.