REGALIAN DOCTRINE

Submitted by: Macabeo, Frances Dyan Basig, Bernadette Alogbati, Juvelyn Tabunyag, Vincent JD 1

PRIMARY SOURCES:

REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS ENSHRINED IN OUR PRESENT AND PAST CONSTITUTIONS THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PROVIDES UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY THE FOLLOWING > Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or productionsharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. > The abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into coproduction, joint venture or productionsharing agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN THE 1935 CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES > Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of

any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE AS FOLLOWS > Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twentyfive years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may by the measure and the limit of the grant.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371 AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, CREATING A NATIONAL COMMISSION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. CHAPTER l GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Short Title.- This Act shall be known as "The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997." Sec. 2. Declaration of State Policies.- The State shall recognize and promote all the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) hereunder enumerated within the framework of the Constitution: a) The State shall recognize and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs within the framework of national unity and development; b)The State shall protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains to ensure their economic, social and cultural well being and shall recognize the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain; c) The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national laws and policies; d) The State shall guarantee that members of the ICCs/IPs regardless of sex, shall equally enjoy the full measure of human rights and freedoms without distinctions or discriminations; e) The State shall take measures, with the participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned, to protect their rights and guarantee respect for their cultural integrity, and to ensure that members of the ICCs/IPs benefit on an equal footing from the rights and opportunities which national laws and regulations grant to other members of the population and f) The State recognizes its obligations to respond to the strong expression of the ICCs/IPs for cultural integrity by assuring maximum ICC/IP participation in the direction of education, health, as well as other services of ICCs/IPs, in order to render such services more responsive to the needs and desires of these communities. Towards these ends, the State shall institute and establish the necessary mechanisms to enforce and guarantee the realization of these rights, taking into consideration their customs, traditions, values, beliefs, their rights to their ancestral domains. CHAPTER ll DEFINITION OF TERMS Sec. 3. Definition of Terms.- For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean: a) Ancestral Domains - Subject to Section 56 hereof, 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, themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals, corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral land, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which their traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators; b) Ancestral Lands - Subject to Section 56 hereof, 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,continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots; c) Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title - refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of possession and ownership of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral domains identified and delineated in accordance with this law; d) Certificate of Ancestral Lands Title - refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral lands; e) Communal Claims - refer to claims on land, resources and rights thereon, belonging to the whole community within a defined territory f) Customary Laws - refer to a body of written and/or unwritten rules, usages, customs and practices traditionally and continually recognized, accepted and observed by respective ICCs/IPs; g) Free and Prior Informed Consent - as used in this Act shall mean the consensus of all members of the ICCs/IPs to; be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the activity, in a language an process understandable to the community; h) Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples -refer to a group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by other, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed customs, tradition and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and culture, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain

some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains; i) Indigenous Political Structure - refer to organizational and cultural leadership systems, institutions, relationships, patterns and processed for decision-making and participation, identified by ICCs/IPs such as, but not limited to, Council of Elders, Council of Timuays, Bodong Holder, or any other tribunal or body of similar nature; j) Individual Claims - refer to claims on land and rights thereon which have been devolved to individuals, families and clans including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies and tree lots; k) National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) -refers to the office created under this Act, which shall be under the Office of the President, and which shall be the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to recognize, protect and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs; l) Native Title - refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest; m) Nongovernment Organization - refers to a private, nonprofit voluntary organization that has been organized primarily for the delivery of various services to the ICCs/IPs and has an established track record for effectiveness and acceptability in the community where it serves; n) People's Organization - refers to a private, nonprofit voluntary organization of members of an ICC/IP which is accepted as representative of such ICCs/IPs; o) Sustainable Traditional Resource Rights - refer to the rights of ICCs/IPs to sustainably use,manage, protect and conserve a) land, air, water, and minerals; b) plants, animals and other organisms; c) collecting, fishing and hunting grounds; d) sacred sites; and e) other areas of economic, ceremonial and aesthetic value in accordance with their indigenous knowledge, beliefs, systems and practices; and p) Time Immemorial - refers to a period of time when as far back as memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner, and utilized a defined territory devolved to them, by operation of customary law or inherited from their ancestors, in accordance with their customs and traditions. CHAPTER III RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL DOMAINS Sec. 4. Concept of Ancestral Lands/Domains.- Ancestral lands/domains shall include such concepts of territories which cover not only the physical environment but the total environment including the spiritual and cultural bonds to the area which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy and use and to which they have claims of ownership. Sec. 5. Indigenous Concept of Ownership.- Indigenous concept of ownership sustains the view that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall

serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity. The indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that ancestral domains are the ICC's/IP's private but community property which belongs to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable traditional resource rights. Sec. 6. Composition of Ancestral Lands/Domains.- Ancestral lands and domains shall consist of all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs as referred under Sec. 3, items (a) and (b) of this Act. Sec. 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains.- The rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs t their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights shall include: a. Rights of Ownership.- The right to claim ownership over lands, bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them at any time within the domains; b. Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources.- Subject to Section 56 hereof, right to develop, control and use lands and territories traditionally occupied, owned, or used; to manage and conserve natural resources within the territories and uphold the responsibilities for future generations; to benefit and share the profits from allocation and utilization of the natural resources found therein; 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; the right to an informed and intelligent participation in the formulation and implementation of any project, government or private, that will affect or impact upon the ancestral domains and to receive just and fair compensation for any damages which they sustain as a result of the project; and the right to effective measures by the government to prevent any interfere with, alienation and encroachment upon these rights; c. Right to Stay in the Territories- The right to stay in the territory and not be removed therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free and prior informed consent, nor through any means other than eminent domain. Where relocation is considered necessary as an exceptional measure, such relocation shall take place only with the free and prior informed consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned and whenever possible, they shall be guaranteed the right to return to their ancestral domains, as soon as the grounds for relocation cease to exist. When such return is not possible, as determined by agreement or through appropriate procedures, ICCs/IPs shall be provided in all possible cases with lands of quality and legal status at least equal to that of the land previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development. Persons thus relocated shall likewise be fully compensated for any resulting loss or injury; d. Right in Case of Displacement.- In case displacement occurs as a result of natural catastrophes, the State shall endeavor to resettle the displaced ICCs/IPs in suitable areas where they can have temporary life support system: Provided, That the displaced ICCs/IPs shall have the right to return to their abandoned lands until such time that the normalcy and safety of such lands shall be determined: Provided, further, That should their ancestral domain cease to exist and normalcy and safety of the previous settlements are not possible, displaced ICCs/IPs shall enjoy security of tenure over lands to which they have been resettled: Provided, furthermore, That basic services and livelihood shall be provided to them to ensure that their needs are adequately addressed:

e. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants.- Right to regulate the entry of migrant settlers and organizations into the domains; f. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water.- For this purpose, the ICCs/IPs shall have access to integrated systems for the management of their inland waters and air space; g. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations.- The right to claim parts of the ancestral domains which have been reserved for various purposes, except those reserved and intended for common and public welfare and service; and h. Right to Resolve Conflict.- Right to resolve land conflicts in accordance with customary laws of the area where the land is located, and only in default thereof shall the complaints be submitted to amicable settlement and to the Courts of Justice whenever necessary. Sec. 8. Rights to Ancestral Lands.- The right of ownership and possession of the ICCs/IPs, to their ancestral lands shall be recognized and protected. a. Right to transfer land/property.- Such right shall include the right to transfer land or property rights to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs, subject to customary laws and traditions of the community concerned. b. Right to Redemption.- In cases where it is shown that the transfer of land/property rights by virtue of any agreement or devise, to a non-member of the concerned ICCs/IPs is tainted by the vitiated consent of the ICCs/IPs,or is transferred for an unconscionable consideration or price, the transferor ICC/IP shall have the right to redeem the same within a period not exceeding fifteen (15) years from the date of transfer. Sec. 9. Responsibilities of ICCs/IPs to their Ancestral Domains.- ICCs/IPs occupying a duly certified ancestral domain shall have the following responsibilities: a. Maintain Ecological Balance- To preserve, restore, and maintain a balanced ecology in the ancestral domain by protecting the flora and fauna, watershed areas, and other reserves; b. Restore Denuded Areas- To actively initiate, undertake and participate in the reforestation of denuded areas and other development programs and projects subject to just and reasonable remuneration; and c. Observe Laws- To observe and comply with the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations for its effective implementation. Sec. 10. Unauthorized and Unlawful Intrusion.- Unauthorized and unlawful intrusion upon, or use of any portion of the ancestral domain, or any violation of the rights herein before enumerated, shall be punishable under this law. Furthermore, the Government shall take measures to prevent non-ICCs/IPs from taking advantage of the ICCs/IPs customs or lack of understanding of laws to secure ownership, possession of land belonging to said ICCs/IPs. Sec. 11. Recognition of Ancestral Domain Rights.- The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains by virtue of Native Title shall be recognized and respected. Formal recognition, when solicited by ICCs/IPs concerned, shall be embodied in a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which shall recognize the title of the concerned ICCs/IPs over the territories identified and delineated. Sec. 12. Option to Secure Certificate of Title under Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496.- Individual members of cultural

communities, with respect to individually-owned ancestral lands who, by themselves or through their predecessors-in -interest, have been in continuous possession and occupation of the same in the concept of owner since the immemorial or for a period of not less than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the approval of this Act and uncontested by the members of the same ICCs/IPs shall have the option to secure title to their ancestral lands under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. For this purpose, said individually-owned ancestral lands, which are agricultural in character and actually used for agricultural, residential, pasture, and tree farming purposes, including those with a slope of eighteen percent (18%) or more, are hereby classified as alienable and disposable agricultural lands. The option granted under this Section shall be exercised within twenty (20) years from the approval of this Act. CHAPTER IV RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNANCE AND EMPOWERMENT Sec. 13. Self-Governance.- The State recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to self-governance and self-determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and institutions. Consequently, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Sec. 14. Support for Autonomous Regions.- The State shall continue to strengthen and support the autonomous regions created under the Constitution as they may require or need. The State shall likewise encourage other ICCs/IPs not included or outside Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera to use the form and content of their ways of life as may be compatible with the fundamental rights defined in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and other internationally recognized human rights. Sec. 15. Justice System, Conflict Resolution Institutions and Peace Building Processes.- The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights. Sec. 16. Right to Participate in Decision -Making.- ICCs/IPs have the right to participate fully, if they so choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights, lives and destinies through procedures determined by them as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous political structures. Consequently, the State shall ensure that the ICCs/IPs shall be given mandatory representation in policy-making bodies and other local legislative councils. Sec. 17. Right to Determine and Decide Priorities for Development.- The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs, institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or use. They shall participate in the formulation,implementation and evaluation of policies, plans and programs for national, regional and local development which may directly affect them. Sec. 18. Tribal Barangays.- The ICCs/IPs living in contiguous areas or communities where they form the predominant population but which are located in municipalities, provinces or cities where they do not constitute the majority of the population, may form or constitute a separate barangay in accordance with the Local Government Code on the creation of tribal barangays.

Sec. 19. Role of Peoples Organizations.- The State shall recognize and respect the role of independent ICCs/IPs organizations to enable the ICCs/IPs to pursue and protect their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means. Sec. 20. Means for Development /Empowerment of ICCs/IPs.- The Government shall establish the means for the full development/empowerment of the ICCs/IPs own institutions and initiatives and, where necessary, provide the resources needed therefor. CHAPTER V SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS Sec. 21. Equal Protection and Non-discrimination of ICCs/IPs.- Consistent with the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights including the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and International Human Rights Law, the State shall, with due recognition of their distinct characteristics and identity, accord to the members of the ICCs/IPs the rights, protections and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the citizenry. It shall extend to them the same employment rights, opportunities, basic services, educational and other rights and privileges available to every member of the society. Accordingly, the State shall likewise ensure that the employment of any form of force of coersion against ICCs/IPs shall be dealt with by law. The State shall ensure that the fundamental human rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution and relevant international instruments are guaranteed also to indigenous women. Towards this end, no provision in this Act shall be interpreted so as to result in the diminution of rights and privileges already recognized and accorded to women under existing laws of general application. Sec. 22. Rights during Armed Conflict.- ICCs/IPs have the right to special protection and security in periods of armed conflict. The State shall observe international standards, in particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, for the protection of civilian populations in circumstances of emergency and armed conflict, and shall not recruit members of the ICCs/IPs against their will into armed forces, and in particular, for the use against other ICCs/IPs; not recruit children of ICCs/IPs into the armed forces under any circumstance; nor force indigenous individuals to abandon their lands, territories and means of subsistence, or relocate them in special centers for military purposes under any discriminatory condition. Sec. 23. Freedom from Discrimination and Right to Equal Opportunity and Treatment.- It shall be the right of the ICCs/IPs to be free from any form of discrimination, with respect to recruitment and conditions of employment, such that they may enjoy equal opportunities as other occupationally-related benefits, informed of their rights under existing labor legislation and of means available to them for redress, not subject to any coercive recruitment systems, including bonded labor and other forms of debt servitude; and equal treatment in employment for men and women, including the protection from sexual harassment. Towards this end, the State shall within the framework of national laws and regulations, and in cooperation with the ICCs/IPs concerned, adopt special measures to ensure the effective protection with regard to the recruitment and conditions of employment of persons belonging to these communities, to the

extent that they are not effectively protected by the laws applicable to workers in general. ICCs/IPs shall have the right to association and freedom for all trade union activities and the right to conclude collective bargaining agreements with employers' conditions. They shall likewise have the right not to be subject to working conditions hazardous to their health, particularly through exposure to pesticides and other toxic substances. Sec. 24. Unlawful Acts Pertaining to Employment.- It shall be unlawful for any person: a. To discriminate against any ICC/IP with respect to the terms and conditions of employment on account of their descent. Equal remuneration shall be paid to ICC/IP and non-ICC/IP for work of equal value; and b. To deny any ICC/IP employee any right or benefit herein provided for or to discharge them for the purpose of preventing them from enjoying any of the rights or benefits provided under this Act. Sec. 25. Basic Services.- The ICC/IP have the right to special measures for the immediate, effective and continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions, including in the areas of employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous women, elderly, youth, children and differently-abled persons. Accordingly, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to government 's basic services which shall include, but not limited to water and electrical facilities, education, health and infrastructure. Sec. 26. Women.- ICC/IP women shall enjoy equal rights and opportunities with men, as regards the social, economic, political and cultural spheres of life. The participation of indigenous women in the decision-making process in all levels, as well as in the development of society, shall be given due respect and recognition. The State shall provide full access to education, maternal and child care, health and nutrition, and housing services to indigenous women. Vocational, technical, professional and other forms of training shall be provided to enable these women to fully participate in all aspects of social life. As far as possible, the State shall ensure that indigenous women have access to all services in their own languages. Sec. 27. Children and Youth.- The State shall recognize the vital role of the children and youth of ICCs/IPs in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being. Towards this end, the State shall support all government programs intended for the development and rearing of the children and youth of ICCs/IPs for civic efficiency and establish such mechanisms as may be necessary for the protection of the rights of the indigenous children and youth. Sec. 28. Integrated System of Education.- The State shall, through the NCIP, provide a complete, adequate and integrated system of education, relevant to the needs of the children and Young people of ICCs/IPs. CHAPTER VI CULTURAL INTEGRITY Sec. 29. Protection of Indigenous Culture, traditions and institutions.- The state shall respect, recognize and protect the right of the ICCs/IPs to preserve and protect their culture, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.

Sec. 30. Educational Systems.- The State shall provide equal access to various cultural opportunities to the ICCs/IPs through the educational system, public or cultural entities, scholarships, grants and other incentives without prejudice to their right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions by providing education in their own language, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. Indigenous children/youth shall have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State. Sec. 31. Recognition of Cultural Diversity.- The State shall endeavor to have the dignity and diversity of the cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations of the ICCs/IPs appropriately reflected in all forms of education, public information and cultural-educational exchange. Consequently, the State shall take effective measures, in consultation with ICCs/IPs concerned, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among ICCs/IPs and all segments of society. Furthermore, the Government shall take effective measures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. The State shall likewise ensure the participation of appropriate indigenous leaders in schools, communities and international cooperative undertakings like festivals, conferences, seminars and workshops to promote and enhance their distinctive heritage and values. Sec. 32. Community Intellectual Rights.- ICCs/IPs have the right to practice and revitalize their own cultural traditions and customs. The State shall preserve, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual, religious, and spiritual property taken without their free and prior informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. Sec. 33. Rights to Religious, Cultural Sites and Ceremonies.- ICCs/IPs shall have the right to manifest, practice, develop teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect and have access to their religious and cultural sites; the right to use and control of ceremonial object; and the right to the repatriation of human remains. Accordingly, the State shall take effective measures, in cooperation with the burial sites, be preserved, respected and protected. To achieve this purpose, it shall be unlawful to: a. Explore, excavate or make diggings on archeological sites of the ICCs/IPs for the purpose of obtaining materials of cultural values without the free and prior informed consent of the community concerned; and b. Deface, remove or otherwise destroy artifacts which are of great importance to the ICCs/IPs for the preservation of their cultural heritage. Sec. 34. Right to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices and to Develop own Sciences and Technologies.- ICCs/IPs are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership and control and protection of their cultural and intellectual rights. They shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other genetic resources, seeds, including derivatives of these resources, traditional medicines and health practices, vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literature, designs, and visual and performing arts. Sec. 35. Access to Biological and Genetic Resources.- Access to biological and genetic resources and to indigenous knowledge related to the conservation, utilization and enhancement of these resources, shall be allowed within ancestral

lands and domains of the ICCs/IPs only with a free and prior informed consent of such communities, obtained in accordance with customary laws of the concerned community. Sec. 36. Sustainable Agro-Technical Development. - The State shall recognize the right of ICCs/IPs to a sustainable agro-technological development and shall formulate and implement programs of action for its effective implementation. The State shall likewise promote the bio-genetic and resource management systems among the ICCs/IPs and shall encourage cooperation among government agencies to ensure the successful sustainable development of ICCs/IPs. Sec. 37. Funds for Archeological and Historical Sites. - The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to receive from the national government all funds especially earmarked or allocated for the management and preservation of their archeological and historical sites and artifacts with the financial and technical support of the national government agencies. CHAPTER VII NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (NCIP) Sec. 38. National Commission on Indigenous Cultural Communities /Indigenous Peoples (NCCP).- to carry out the policies herein set forth, there shall be created the National Commission on ICCs/IPs (NCIP), which shall be the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being of the ICCs/IPs and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. Sec. 39. Mandate.- The NCIP shall protect and promote the interest and wellbeing of the ICCs/IPs with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions. Sec. 40. Composition.- The NCIP shall be an independent agency under the Office of the President and shall be composed of seven (7) Commissioners belonging to ICCs/IPs, one (1) of whom shall be the Chairperson. The Commissioners shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines from a list of recommendees submitted by authentic ICCs/IPs: Provided, That the seven (7) Commissioners shall be appointed specifically from each of the following ethnographic areas: Region I and the Cordilleras; Region II; the rest of Luzon; Island Groups including Mindoro, Palawan, Romblon, Panay and the rest of the Visayas; Northern and Western Mindanao; Southern and Eastern Mindanao; and Central Mindanao: Provided, That at least two (2) of the seven (7) Commissioners shall be women. Sec. 41. Qualifications, Tenure, Compensation.- The Chairperson and the six (6) Commissioners must be natural born Filipino citizens, bonafide members of ICCs/IPs as certified by his/her tribe, experienced in ethnic affairs and who have worked for at least ten (10) years with an ICC/IP community and/or any government agency involved in ICC/IP, at least 35 years of age at the time of appointment, and must be of proven honesty and integrity: Provided, That at least two (2) of the seven (7) Commissioners shall be the members of the Philippine Bar: Provided, further, That the members of the NCIP shall hold office for a period of three (3) years, and may be subject to re-appointment for another term: Provided, furthermore, That no person shall serve for more than two (2) terms. Appointment to any vacancy shall only be for the unexpired term of the predecessor and in no case shall a member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity: Provided, finally, That the Chairperson and the

Commissioners shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the Salary Standardization Law. Sec. 42. Removal from Office.- Any member of the NCIP may be removed from office by the President, on his own initiative or upon recommendation by any indigenous community, before the expiration of his term for cause and after complying with due process requirement of law. Sec. 43. Appointment of Commissioners.- The President shall appoint the seven (7) Commissioners of the NCIP within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act. Sec. 44. Powers and Functions.- To accomplish its mandate, the NCIP shall have the following powers, jurisdiction and function: a) To serve as the primary government agency through which ICCs/IPs can seek government assistance and as the medium, thorough which such assistance may be extended; b) To review and assess the conditions of ICCs/IPs including existing laws and policies pertinent thereto and to propose relevant laws and policies to address their role in national development; c) To formulate and implement policies, plans, programs and projects for the economic, social and cultural development of the ICCs/IPs and to monitor the implementation thereof; d) To request and engage the services and support of experts from other agencies of government or employ private experts and consultants as may be required in the pursuit of its objectives; e) To issue certificate of ancestral land/domain title; f) Subject to existing laws, to enter into contracts, agreements, or arrangement, with government or private agencies or entities as may be necessary to attain the objectives of this Act, and subject to the approval of the President, to obtain loans from government lending institutions and other lending institutions to finance its programs; g) To negotiate for funds and to accept grants, donations, gifts and/or properties in whatever form and from whatever source, local and international, subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines, for the benefit of ICCs/IPs and administer the same in accordance with the terms thereof; or in the absence of any condition, in such manner consistent with the interest of ICCs/IPs as well as existing laws; h) To coordinate development programs and projects for the advancement of the ICCs/IPs and to oversee the proper implementation thereof; i) To convene periodic conventions or assemblies of IPs to review, assess as well as propose policies or plans; j) To advise the President of the Philippines on all matters relating to the ICCs/IPs and to submit within sixty (60) days after the close of each calendar year, a report of its operations and achievements; k) To submit to Congress appropriate legislative proposals intended to carry out the policies under this Act; l) To prepare and submit the appropriate budget to the Office of the President; m) To issue appropriate certification as a pre-condition to the grant of permit, lease, grant, or any other similar authority for the disposition, utilization, management and appropriation by any private individual, corporate entity or any government agency, corporation or subdivision thereof on any part or portion of the ancestral domain taking into consideration the consensus approval of the

ICCs/IPs concerned; n) To decide all appeals from the decisions and acts of all the various offices within the Commission: o) To promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the implementation of this Act; p) To exercise such other powers and functions as may be directed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines; and q) To represent the Philippine ICCs/IPs in all international conferences and conventions dealing with indigenous peoples and other related concerns. Sec. 45. Accessibility and Transparency.- Subject to such limitations as may be provided by law or by rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, all official records, documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as research data used as basis for policy development of the Commission shall be made accessible to the public. Sec.46. Officers within the NCIP.- The NCIP shall have the following offices which shall be responsible for the implementation of the policies herein after provided: a. Ancestral Domains Office - The Ancestral Domain Office shall be responsible for the identification, delineation and recognition of ancestral land/domains. It shall also be responsible for the management of ancestral lands/domains in accordance with the master plans as well as the implementation of the ancestral domain rights of the ICCs/IPs as provided in Chapter III of this Act. It shall also issue, upon the free and prior informed consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned, certification prior to the grant of any license, lease or permit for the exploitation of natural resources affecting the interests of ICCs/IPs in protecting the territorial integrity of all ancestral domains. It shall likewise perform such other functions as the Commission may deem appropriate and necessary; b. Office on Policy, Planning and Research - The Office on Policy, Planning and Research shall be responsible for the formulation of appropriate policies and programs for ICCs/IPs such as, but not limited to, the development of a Five-Year Master Plan for the ICCs/IPs. Such plan shall undergo a process such that every five years, the Commission shall endeavor to assess the plan and make ramifications in accordance with the changing situations. The Office shall also undertake the documentation of customary law and shall establish and maintain a Research Center that would serve as a depository of ethnographic information for monitoring, evaluation and policy formulation. It shall assist the legislative branch of the national government in the formulation of appropriate legislation benefiting ICCs/IPs. c. Office of Education, Culture and Health - The Office on Culture, Education and Health shall be responsible for the effective implementation of the education, cultural and related rights as provided in this Act. It shall assist, promote and support community schools, both formal and non-formal, for the benefit of the local indigenous community, especially in areas where existing educational facilities are not accessible to members of the indigenous group. It shall administer all scholarship programs and other educational rights intended for ICC/IP beneficiaries in coordination with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the Commission on Higher Education. It shall undertake, within the limits of available appropriation, a special program which includes language and vocational training, public health and family assistance program and related subjects. It shall also identify ICCs/IPs with potential training in the health profession and

encourage and assist them to enroll in schools of medicine, nursing, physical therapy and other allied courses pertaining to the health profession. Towards this end, the NCIP shall deploy a representative in each of the said offices who shall personally perform the foregoing task and who shall receive complaints from the ICCs/IPs and compel action from appropriate agency. It shall also monitor the activities of the National Museum and other similar government agencies generally intended to manage and preserve historical and archeological artifacts of the ICCs /IPs and shall be responsible for the implementation of such other functions as the NCIP may deem appropriate and necessary; d. Office on Socio-Economic Services and Special Concerns- The Office on SocioEconomic Services and Special Concerns shall serve as the Office through which the NCIP shall coordinate with pertinent government agencies specially charged with the implementation of various basic socio-economic services, policies, plans and programs affecting the ICCs/IPs to ensure that the same are properly and directly enjoyed by them. It shall also be responsible for such other functions as the NCIP may deem appropriate and necessary; e. Office of Empowerment and Human Rights - The Office of Empowerment and Human Rights shall ensure that indigenous socio- political, cultural and economic rights are respected and recognized. It shall ensure that capacity building mechanisms are instituted and ICCs/IPs are afforded every opportunity, if they so choose, to participate in all level decision-making. It shall likewise ensure that the basic human rights, and such other rights as the NCIP may determine, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations are protected and promoted; f. Administrative Office - The Administrative Office shall provide the NCIP with economical, efficient and effective services pertaining to personnel, finance, records, equipment, security, supplies, and related services. It shall also administer the Ancestral Domains Fund; and g. Legal Affairs Office - There shall be a Legal Affairs Office which shall advice the NCIP on all legal matters concerning ICCs/IPs and which shall be responsible for providing ICCs/IPs with legal assistance in litigation involving community interest. It shall conduct preliminary investigation on the basis of complaints filed by the ICCs/IPs against a natural or juridical person believed to have violated ICCs/IPs rights. On the basis of its findings, it shall initiate the filing of appropriate legal or administrative action to the NCIP. Sec. 47. Other Offices.- The NCIP shall have the power to create additional offices as it may deem necessary subject to existing rules and regulations. Sec. 48. Regional and Field Offices.- Existing regional and field offices shall remain to function under the strengthened organizational structure of the NCIP. Other field office shall be created wherever appropriate and the staffing pattern thereof shall be determined by the NCIP: Provided, That in provinces where there are ICCs/IPs but without field offices, the NCIP shall establish field offices in said provinces. Sec. 49. Office of the Executive Director.- The NCIP shall create the Office of the Executive Director which shall serve as its secretariat. The office shall be headed by an Executive Director who shall be appointed by the President of the Republic of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the NCIP on a permanent basis. The staffing pattern of the office shall be determined by the NCIP subject to existing rules and regulations. Sec. 50. Consultative Body.- A body consisting of the traditional leaders, elders and representatives from the women and youth sectors of the different ICCs/IPs

shall be constituted by the NCIP from the time to time to advise it on matters relating to the problems, aspirations and interests of the ICCs/IPs. CHAPTER VIII DELINEATION AND RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS Sec. 51. Delineation and Recognition of Ancestral Domains.- Self-delineation shall be guiding principle in the identification and delineation of ancestral domains. As such, the ICCs/IPs concerned shall have a decisive role in all the activities pertinent thereto. The Sworn Statement of the Elders as to the Scope of the territories and agreements/pacts made with neighboring ICCs/IPs, if any, will be essential to the determination of these traditional territories. The Government shall take the necessary steps to identify lands which the ICCs/IPs concerned traditionally occupy and guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession thereto. Measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the rights of the ICCs/IPs concerned to land which may no longer be exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators. Sec. 52. Delineation Process.- The identification and delineation of ancestral domains shall be done in accordance with the following procedures: a. Ancestral Domains Delineated Prior to this Act - The provisions hereunder shall not apply to ancestral domains/lands already delineated according to DENR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1993, nor to ancestral lands and domains delineated under any other community/ancestral domain program prior to the enactment of his law. ICCs/IPs enactment of this law shall have the right to apply for the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) over the area without going through the process outlined hereunder; b. Petition for Delineation - The process of delineating a specific perimeter may be initiated by the NCIP with the consent of the ICC/IP concerned, or through a Petition for Delineation filed with the NCIP, by a majority of the members of the ICCs/IPs; c. Delineation Paper - The official delineation of ancestral domain boundaries including census of all community members therein, shall be immediately undertaken by the Ancestral Domains Office upon filing of the application by the ICCs/IPs concerned. Delineation will be done in coordination with the community concerned and shall at all times include genuine involvement and participation by the members of the communities concerned; d. Proof required - Proof of Ancestral Domain Claims shall include the testimony of elders or community under oath, and other documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession or occupation of the area since time immemorial by such ICCs/IPs in the concept of owners which shall be any one (1) of the following authentic documents: 1. Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs customs and traditions; 2. Written accounts of the ICCs/IPs political structure and institution; 3. Pictures showing long term occupation such as those of old improvements, burial grounds, sacred places and old villages; 4. Historical accounts, including pacts and agreements concerning boundaries entered into by the ICCs/IPs concerned with other ICCs/IPs;

5. Survey plans and sketch maps; 6. Anthropological data; 7. Genealogical surveys; 8. Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional communal forests and hunting grounds; 9. Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional landmarks such as mountains, rivers, creeks, ridges, hills, terraces and the like; and 10. Write-ups of names and places derived from the native dialect of the community. e. Preparation of Maps - On the basis of such investigation and the findings of fact based thereon, the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP shall prepare a perimeter map, complete with technical descriptions, and a description of the natural features and landmarks embraced therein; f. Report of Investigation and Other Documents - A complete copy of the preliminary census and a report of investigation, shall be prepared by the Ancestral Domains Office of the NCIP; g. Notice and Publication - A copy of each document, including a translation in the native language of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be posted in a prominent place therein for at least fifteen (15) days. A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local, provincial and regional offices of the NCIP, and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks to allow other claimants to file opposition thereto within fifteen (15) days from the date of such publication: Provided, That in areas where no such newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will be a valid substitute: Provided, further, That mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both newspaper and radio station are not available; h. Endorsement to NCIP - Within fifteen (15) days from publication, and of the inspection process, the Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare a report to the NCIP endorsing a favorable action upon a claim that is deemed to have sufficient proof. However, if the proof is deemed insufficient, the Ancestral Domains Office shall require the submission of additional evidence: Provided, That the Ancestral Domains Office shall reject any claim that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after inspection and verification: Provided, further, That in case of rejection, the Ancestral Domains Office shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all concerned, containing the grounds for denial. The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP: Provided, furthermore, That in cases where there are conflicting claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the contending parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary resolution of the conflict, without prejudice to its full adjudication according to the selection below. i. Turnover of Areas Within Ancestral Domains Managed by Other Government Agencies - The Chairperson of the NCIP shall certify that the area covered is an ancestral domain. The secretaries of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of the Interior and Local Government, and Department of Justice, the Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, and any other government agency claiming jurisdiction over the area shall be notified thereof. Such notification shall terminate any legal basis for the jurisdiction previously claimed; j. Issuance of CADT - ICCs/IPs whose ancestral domains have been officially delineated and determined by the NCIP shall be issued a CADT in the name of the community concerned, containing a list of all those identified in the census; and

k. Registration of CADTs - The NCIP shall register issued certificates of ancestral domain titles and certificates of ancestral lands titles before the Register of Deeds in the place where the property is situated. Sec. 53. Identification, Delineation and Certification of Ancestral Lands.a. The allocation of lands within any ancestral domain to individual or indigenous corporate (family or clan) claimants shall be left to the ICCs/IPs concerned to decide in accordance with customs and traditions; b. Individual and indigenous corporate claimants of ancestral lands which are not within ancestral domains, may have their claims officially established by filing applications for the identification and delineation of their claims with the Ancestral Domains Office. An individual or recognized head of a family or clan may file such application in his behalf or in behalf of his family or clan, respectively; c. Proofs of such claims shall accompany the application form which shall include the testimony under oath of elders of the community and other documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession or occupation of the areas since time immemorial by the individual or corporate claimants in the concept of owners which shall be any of the authentic documents enumerated under Sec. 52 (d) of this act, including tax declarations and proofs of payment of taxes; d. The Ancestral Domains Office may require from each ancestral claimant the submission of such other documents, Sworn Statements and the like, which in its opinion, may shed light on the veracity of the contents of the application/claim; e. Upon receipt of the applications for delineation and recognition of ancestral land claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the publication of the application and a copy of each document submitted including a translation in the native language of the ICCs/IPs concerned in a prominent place therein for at least fifteen (15) days. A copy of the document shall also be posted at the local, provincial, and regional offices of the NCIP and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks to allow other claimants to file opposition thereto within fifteen (15) days from the date of such publication: Provided, That in areas where no such newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will be a valid substitute: Provided, further, That mere posting shall be deemed sufficient if both newspapers and radio station are not available f. Fifteen (15) days after such publication, the Ancestral Domains Office shall investigate and inspect each application, and if found to be meritorious, shall cause a parcellary survey of the area being claimed. The Ancestral Domains office shall reject any claim that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after inspection and verification. In case of rejection, the Ancestral Domains office shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all concerned, containing the grounds for denial. The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP. In case of conflicting claims among individual or indigenous corporate claimants, the Ancestral domains Office shall cause the contending parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary resolution of the conflict, without prejudice to its full adjudication according to Sec. 62 of this Act. In all proceedings for the identification or delineation of the ancestral domains as herein provided, the Director of Lands shall represent the interest of the Republic of the Philippines; and g. The Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare and submit a report on each and every application surveyed and delineated to the NCIP, which shall, in turn, evaluate or corporate (family or clan) claimant over ancestral lands. Sec. 54. Fraudulent Claims.- The Ancestral Domains Office may, upon written

request from the ICCs/IPs, review existing claims which have been fraudulently acquired by any person or community. Any claim found to be fraudulently acquired by, and issued to, any person or community may be cancelled by the NCIP after due notice and hearing of all parties concerned. Sec. 55. Communal Rights.- Subject to Section 56 hereof, areas within the ancestral domains, whether delineated or not, shall be presumed to be communally held: Provide, That communal rights under this Act shall not be construed as co-ownership as provided in Republic Act. No. 386, otherwise known as the New Civil Code. Sec. 56. Existing Property Rights Regimes.- Property rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of this Act, shall be recognized and respected. Sec. 57. Natural Resources within Ancestral Domains.- The ICCs/IPs shall have the priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains. A non-member of the ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years: Provided, That a formal and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow such operation: Provided, finally, That the all extractions shall be used to facilitate the development and improvement of the ancestral domains. Sec. 58. Environmental Consideration.- Ancestral domains or portion thereof, which are found necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover, or reforestation as determined by the appropriate agencies with the full participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be maintained, managed and developed for such purposes. The ICCs/IPs concerned shall be given the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve such areas with the full and effective assistance of the government agencies. Should the ICCs/IPs decide to transfer the responsibility over the areas, said decision must be made in writing. The consent of the ICCs/IPs should be arrived at in accordance with its customary laws without prejudice to the basic requirement of the existing laws on free and prior informed consent: Provided, That the transfer shall be temporary and will ultimately revert to the ICCs/IPs in accordance with a program for technology transfer: Provided, further, That no ICCs/IPs shall be displaced or relocated for the purpose enumerated under this section without the written consent of the specific persons authorized to give consent. Sec. 59. Certification Precondition.- all department and other governmental agencies shall henceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing, renewing, or granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into any production-sharing agreement, without prior certification from the NCIP that the area affected does not overlap with any ancestral domain. Such certificate shall only be issued after a field-based investigation is conducted by the Ancestral Domain Office of the area concerned: Provided, That no certificate shall be issued by the NCIP without the free and prior informed and written consent of the ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, further, That no department, government agency or government-owned or controlled corporation may issue new concession, license, lease, or production sharing agreement while there is pending application CADT: Provided, finally, That the ICCs/IPs shall have the right to stop or suspend, in accordance with this Act, any project that has not satisfied the requirement of this consultation process. Sec.60. Exemption from Taxes.- All lands certified to be ancestral domains shall

be exempt from real property taxes, specially levies, and other forms of exaction except such portion of the ancestral domains as are actually used for large-scale agriculture, commercial forest plantation and residential purposes and upon titling by other by private person: Provided, that all exactions shall be used to facilitate the development and improvement of the ancestral domains. Sec. 61. Temporary Requisition Powers.- Prior to the establishment of an institutional surveying capacity whereby it can effectively fulfill its mandate, but in no case beyond three (3) years after its creation, the NCIP is hereby authorized to request the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) survey teams as well as other equally capable private survey teams, through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), to delineate ancestral domain perimeters. The DENR Secretary shall accommodate any such request within one (1) month of its issuance: Provided, That the Memorandum of Agreement shall stipulate, among others, a provision for technology transfer to the NCIP. Sec. 62. Resolution of Conflicts.- In cases of conflicting interest, where there are adverse claims within the ancestral domains as delineated in the survey plan, and which cannot be resolved, the NCIP shall hear and decide, after notice to the proper parties, the disputes arising from the delineation of such ancestral domains: Provided, That if the dispute is between and/or among ICCs/IPs regarding the traditional boundaries of their respective ancestral domains, customary process shall be followed. The NCIP shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out its adjudicatory functions: Provided, further, That in any decision, order, award or ruling of the NCIP on any ancestral domain dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement and interpretation of this Act may be brought for Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Sec. 63. Applicable Laws.- Customary laws, traditions and practices of the ICCs/IPs of the land where the conflict arises shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims and ownerships, hereditary succession and settlement of land disputes. Any doubt or ambiguity in the application of laws shall be resolved in favor of the ICCs/IPs. Sec. 64. Remedial Measures.- Expropriation may be resorted to in the resolution of conflicts of interest following the principle of the "common good". The NCIP shall take appropriate legal action for the cancellation of officially documented titles which were acquired illegally: Provided, That such procedure shall ensure that the rights of possessors in good faith shall be respected: Provided, further, That the action for cancellation shall be initiated within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, finally, That the action for reconveyance shall be a period of ten (10) years in accordance with existing laws. CHAPTER IX JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS Sec. 65. Primary of Customary Laws and Practices.- When disputes involve ICCs/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute. Sec. 66. Jurisdiction of the NCIP.- The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs; Provided, however, That no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this

purpose, a certification shall be issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a petition with the NCIP. Sec. 67. Appeals to the Court of Appeals.- Decisions of the NCIP shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review. Sec. 68. Execution of Decisions, Awards, Orders.- Upon expiration of the period here provided and no appeal is perfected by any of the contending parties, the Hearing Officer of the NCIP, on its own initiative or upon motion by the prevailing party, shall issue a writ of execution requiring the sheriff or the proper officer to execute final decisions, orders or awards of the Regional Hearing Officer of the NCIP. Sec. 69. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the NCIP.- The NCIP shall have the power and authority: a. To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases filed before it as well as those pertaining to its internal functions and such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act; b. To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy, issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts, records, agreements and other document of similar nature as may be material to a just determination of the matter under investigation or hearing conducted in pursuance of this Act; c. To hold any person in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties therefor; and d. To enjoin any or all acts involving or arising from any case pending therefore it which, if not restrained forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any of the parties to the case or seriously affect social or economic activity. Sec. 70. No restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction - No inferior court of the Philippines shall have the jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the NCIP or any of its duly authorized or designated offices in any case, dispute or controversy to, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains. CHAPTER IX ANCESTRAL DOMAINS FUND Sec. 71. Ancestral Domains Fund.- There is hereby created a special fund, to be known as the Ancestral Domains Fund, an initial amount of the One Hundred thirty million pesos(P130,000,000) to cover compensation for expropriated lands, delineation and development of ancestral domains. An amount of Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000) shall be sourced from the gross income of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) from its lotto operation, Ten millions pesos (P10,000,000) from the gross receipts of the travel tax of the preceding year, the fund of the Social Reform Council intended for survey and delineation of ancestral lands/domains, and such other source as the government may be deem appropriate. Thereafter such amount shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act. Foreign as well as local funds which are made available for the ICCs/IPs through the government of the Philippines shall be coursed through the NCIP. The NCIP may also solicit and receive donations, endowments shall be

exempted from income or gift taxes and all other taxes, charges or fees imposed by the government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. CHAPTER XI PENALTIES Sec. 72. Punishable Acts and Applicable Penalties.- Any person who commits violation of any of the provisions of this Act, such as, but not limited to, authorized and/or unlawful intrusion upon any ancestral lands or domains as stated in Sec. 10, Chapter III, or shall commit any of the prohibited acts mentioned in Sections 21 and 24, Chapter V, Section 33, Chapter VI hereof, shall be punished in accordance with the customary laws of the ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, That no such penalty shall be cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment: Provided, further, That neither shall the death penalty or excessive fines be imposed. This provision shall be without prejudice to the right of any ICCs/IPs to avail of the protection of existing laws. In which case, any person who violates any provision of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment of not less than nine (9) months but not more than twelve (12) years or a fine not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) or both such fine and imprisonment upon the discretion of the court. In addition, he shall be obliged to pay to the ICCs/IPs concerned whatever damage may have been suffered by the latter as a consequence of the unlawful act. Sec. 73. Persons Subject to Punishment.- If the offender is a juridical person, all officers such as, but not limited to, its president, manager, or head of office responsible for their unlawful act shall be criminally liable therefor, in addition to the cancellation of certificates of their registration and/or license: Provided, That if the offender is a public official, the penalty shall include perpetual disqualification to hold public office. CHAPTER XII MERGER OF THE OFFICE FOR NORTHERN CULTURAL COMMUNITIES (ONCC) AND THE OFFICE FOR SOUTHERN CULTURAL COMMUNITIES (OSCC) Sec. 74. Merger of ONCC/OSCC.- The Office for Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC) and the Office of Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC), created under Executive Order Nos. 122-B and 122-C respectively, are hereby merged as organic offices of the NCIP and shall continue to function under a revitalized and strengthened structures to achieve the objectives of the NCIP: Provided, That the positions of Regional Directors and below, are hereby phased-out upon the effectivity of this Act: Provided, further, That officials and employees of the phased-out offices who may be qualified may apply for reappointment with the NCIP and may be given prior rights in the filing up of the newly created positions of NCIP, subject to the qualifications set by the Placement Committee: Provided, furthermore, That in the case where an indigenous person and a non-indigenous person with similar qualifications apply for the same position, priority shall be given to the former. Officers and employees who are to be phased-out as a result of the merger of their offices shall be entitled to gratuity a rate equivalent to one and a half (1 1/2) months salary for every year of continuous and satisfactory service rendered or the equivalent nearest fraction thereof favorable to them on the basis

of the highest salary received. If they are already entitled to retirement benefits or the gratuity herein provided. Officers and employees who may be reinstated shall refund such retirement benefits or gratuity received: Provided, finally That absorbed personnel must still meet the qualifications and standards set by the Civil Service and the Placement Committee herein created. Sec. 75. Transition Period.- The ONCC/OSCC shall have a period of six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act within which to wind up its affairs and to conduct audit of its finances. Sec. 76. Transfer of Assets/Properties.- All real and personal properties which are vested in, or belonging to, the merged offices as aforestated shall be transferred to the NCIP without further need of conveyance, transfer or assignment and shall be held for the same purpose as they were held by the former offices: Provided, That all contracts, records and documents shall be transferred to the NCIP. All agreements and contracts entered into by the merged offices shall remain in full force and effect unless otherwise terminated, modified or amended by the NCIP. Sec. 77. Placement Committee.- Subject to rules on government reorganization, a Placement Committee shall be created by the NCIP, in coordination with the Civil Service Commission, which shall assist in the judicious selection and placement of personnel in order that the best qualified and most deserving persons shall be appointed in the reorganized agency. The placement Committee shall be composed of seven (7) commissioners and an ICCs/IPs representative from each of the first and second level employees association in the Offices for Northern and Southern Cultural Communities (ONCC/OSCC), nongovernment organizations (NGOs) who have served the community for at least five (5) years and peoples organizations (POs) with at least five (5) years of existence. They shall be guided by the criteria of retention and appointment to be prepared by the consultative body and by the pertinent provisions of the civil service law. CHAPTER XIII FINAL PROVISIONS Sec. 78. Special Provision.- The City of Baguio shall remain to be governed by its Chapter and all lands proclaimed as part of its townsite reservation shall remain as such until otherwise reclassified by appropriate legislation: Provided, That prior land rights and titles recognized and/or required through any judicial, administrative or other processes before the effectivity of this Act shall remain valid: Provided, further, That this provision shall not apply to any territory which becomes part of the City of Baguio after the effectivity of this Act. Sec. 79. Appropriations.- The amount necessary to finance the initial implementation of this Act shall be charged against the current year's appropriation of the ONCC and the OSCC. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for its continued implementation shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act. Sec. 80. Implementing Rules and Regulations.- Within sixty (60) days immediately after appointment, the NCIP shall issue the necessary rules and regulations, in consultation with the Committees on National Cultural Communities of the House of Representatives and the Senate, for the effective implementation of this Act. Sec. 81. Saving Clause.- This Act will not in any manner adversely affect the rights and benefits of the ICCs/IPs under other conventions, recommendations,

international treaties, national laws, awards, customs and agreements. Sec. 82. Separability Clause.- In case any provision of this Act or any portion thereof is declared unconstitutional by a competent court, other provisions shall not be affected thereby. Sec. 83. Repealing Clause.- Presidential Decree NO. 410, Executive Order Nos. 122-B and 122-C, and all other laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Sec. 84. Effectivity.- This Act shall take effect fifteen days (15) days upon its publication in the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved: 29 October 1997.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC [G.R. No. 135385. December 6, 2000] ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA, petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT and CHAIRMAN and COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES,respondents. HON. JUAN M .FLAVIER, HON. PONCIANO BENNAGEN, BAYANI ASCARRAGA, EDTAMI MANSAYANGAN, BASILIO WANDAG, EVELYN DUNUAN, YAOM TUGAS, ALFREMO CARPIANO, LIBERATO A. GABIN, MATERNIDAD M. COLAS, NARCISA M. DALUPINES, BAI KIRAM-CONNIE SATURNO, BAE MLOMO-BEATRIZ T. ABASALA, DATU BALITUNGTUNG-ANTONIO D. LUMANDONG, DATU MANTUMUKAW TEOFISTO SABASALES, DATU EDUAARDO BANDA, DATU JOEL UNAD, DATU RAMON BAYAAN, TIMUAY JOSE ANOY, TIMUAY MACARIO D. SALACAO, TIMUAY EDWIN B. ENDING, DATU SAHAMPONG MALANAW VI, DATU BEN PENDAO CABIGON, BAI NANAPNAY-LIZA SAWAY, BAY INAY DAYA-MELINDA S. REYMUNDO, BAI TINANGHAGA HELINITA T. PANGAN, DATU MAKAPUKAW ADOLINO L. SAWAY, DATU MAUDAYAW-CRISPEN SAWAY, VICKY MAKAY, LOURDES D. AMOS, GILBERT P. HOGGANG, TERESA GASPAR, MANUEL S. ONALAN, MIA GRACE L. GIRON, ROSEMARIE G. PE, BENITO CARINO, JOSEPH JUDE CARANTES, LYNETTE CARANTES-VIVAL, LANGLEY SEGUNDO, SATUR S. BUGNAY, CARLING DOMULOT, ANDRES MENDIOGRIN, LEOPOLDO ABUGAN, VIRGILIO CAYETANO, CONCHITA G. DESCAGA, LEVY ESTEVES, ODETTE G. ESTEVEZ, RODOLFO C. AGUILAR, MAURO VALONES, PEPE H. ATONG, OFELIA T. DAVI, PERFECTO B. GUINOSAO, WALTER N. TIMOL, MANUEL T. SELEN, OSCAR DALUNHAY, RICO O. SULATAN, RAFFY MALINDA, ALFREDO ABILLANOS, JESSIE ANDILAB, MIRLANDO H. MANGKULINTAS, SAMIE SATURNO, ROMEO A. LINDAHAY, ROEL S. MANSANG-CAGAN, PAQUITO S. LIESES, FILIPE G. SAWAY, HERMINIA S. SAWAY, JULIUS S. SAWAY, LEONARDA SAWAY, JIMMY UGYUB, SALVADOR TIONGSON, VENANCIO APANG, MADION MALID, SUKIM MALID, NENENG MALID, MANGKATADONG AUGUSTO DIANO, JOSEPHINE M. ALBESO, MORENO MALID, MARIO MANGCAL, FELAY DIAMILING, SALOME P. SARZA, FELIPE P. BAGON, SAMMY SALNUNGAN, ANTONIO D. EMBA, NORMA MAPANSAGONOS, ROMEO SALIGA, SR., JERSON P. GERADA, RENATO T. BAGON, JR., SARING MASALONG, SOLEDAD M. GERARDA, ELIZABETH L. MENDI, MORANTE S. TIWAN, DANILO M. MALUDAO, MINORS MARICEL MALID, represented by her father CORNELIO MALID, MARCELINO M. LADRA, represented by her father MONICO D. LADRA, JENNYLYN MALID, represented by her father TONY MALID, ARIEL M. EVANGELISTA, represented by her mother LINAY BALBUENA, EDWARD M. EMUY, SR., SUSAN BOLANIO, OND, PULA BATO BLAAN TRIBAL FARMERS ASSOCIATION, INTERPEOPLES EXCHANGE, INC. and GREEN FORUM-WESTERN VISAYAS, intervenors. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, intervenor. IKALAHAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLE and HARIBON FOUNDATION CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, INC., intervenor. FOR THE

RESOLUTION PER CURIAM: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (R.A. 8371), otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (Implementing Rules). In its resolution of September 29, 1998, the Court required respondents to comment. [1] In compliance, respondents Chairperson and Commissioners of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the government agency created under the IPRA to implement its provisions, filed on October 13, 1998 their Comment to the Petition, in which they defend the constitutionality of the IPRA and pray that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit. On October 19, 1998, 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. On November 10, 1998, 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), 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 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, 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. Oral arguments were heard on April 13, 1999. Thereafter, the parties and intervenors filed their respective memoranda in which they reiterate the arguments adduced in their earlier pleadings and during the hearing. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following provisions of the IPRA and its Implementing Rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States 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:

(1) Section 3(a) which defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains, and Section 3(b) which, in turn, defines ancestral lands; (2) Section 5, in relation to section 3(a), which provides that ancestral domains including 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 in relation to section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the composition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands; (4) Section 7 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral domains; (5) Section 8 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral lands; (6) Section 57 which provides for priority rights of the indigenous peoples in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploration of minerals and other natural resources within the areas claimed to be their ancestral domains, and the right to enter into agreements with nonindigenous peoples for the development and utilization of natural resources therein for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years; and (7) Section 58 which gives the indigenous peoples the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover or reforestation.[2] Petitioners also content 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.[3] 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.[4] These provisions are: (1) sections 51 to 53 and 59 which detail the process of delineation and recognition of ancestral domains and which vest on the NCIP the sole authority to delineate ancestral domains and ancestral lands; (2) Section 52[i] which provides that upon certification by the NCIP that a particular area is an ancestral domain and upon notification to the following officials, namely, the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Secretary of Interior and Local Governments, Secretary of Justice and Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, the jurisdiction of said officials over said area terminates; (3) Section 63 which provides the customary law, traditions and practices of indigenous peoples shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims of ownership, hereditary

succession and settlement of land disputes, and that any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation thereof shall be resolved in favor of the indigenous peoples; (4) Section 65 which states that customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve disputes involving indigenous peoples; and (5) Section 66 which vests on the NCIP the jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of the indigenous peoples.[5] 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. They contend that said Rule infringes upon the Presidents power of control over executive departments under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution.[6] Petitioners pray for the following: (1) A declaration that Sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 52[I], 57, 58, 59, 63, 65 and 66 and other related provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional and invalid; (2) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Chairperson and Commissioners of the NCIP to cease and desist from implementing the assailed provisions of R.A. 8371 and its Implementing Rules; (3) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to cease and desist from implementing Department of Environment and Natural Resources Circular No. 2, series of 1998; (4) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Secretary of Budget and Management to cease and desist from disbursing public funds for the implementation of the assailed provisions of R.A. 8371; and (5) The issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to comply with his duty of carrying out the States constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization and conservation of Philippine natural resources.[7] After due deliberation on the petition, the members of the Court voted as follows: Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition. Justice Kapunan filed an opinion, which the Chief Justice and Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago join, sustaining the validity of the challenged provisions of R.A. 8371. Justice Puno also filed a separate opinion sustaining all challenged provisions of the law with the exception of Section 1, Part II, Rule III of NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, the Rules and Regulations Implementing the IPRA, and Section 57 of the IPRA which he contends should be interpreted as dealing with the largescale exploitation of natural resources and should be read in conjunction with Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. 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.

Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. Justice Panganiban filed a separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3 (a)(b), 5, 6, 7 (a)(b), 8, and related provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. He reserves judgment on the constitutionality of Sections 58, 59, 65, and 66 of the law, which he believes must await the filing of specific cases by those whose rights may have been violated by the IPRA. Justice Vitug also filed a separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon join in the separate opinions of Justices Panganiban and Vitug. 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. Attached hereto and made integral parts thereof are the separate opinions of Justices Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, and Panganiban. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, YnaresSantiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza and Panganiban JJ., see separate opinion

[1]

Rollo, p. 114. Petition, Rollo, pp. 16-23. Id. at 23-25.

[2]

[3]

[4]

Section 1, Article III of the Constitution states: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
[5]

Rollo, pp. 25-27. Id. at 27-28. Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the hearing held on April 13, 1999, pp. 5-6.

[6]

[7]

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906 MATEO CARIO, Petitioner-Appellant , vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, RespondentAppellee.

WILLARD, J.: The appellant, on the 23d of June, 1903, by his attorney in fact, Metcalf A. Clarke, filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration asking that he be inscribed as the owner of a tract of land in the municipality of Baguio, in the province of Benguet, containing 146 hectares. The Government of the Philippine Islands, appeared in the Court of Land Registration and opposed the petition. The Government of the United States that the land was part of the military reservation of Baguio. Judgment was entered in the Court of Land Registration in favor of the petitioner, from which judgment the respondents appealed in accordance with the law then in force to the Court of First Instance of the province of Benguet. The case was therein tried de novo, and judgment was entered dismissing the petition. The petitioner has brought the case here by bill of exceptions. The petitioner presented no documentary evidence of title, except a possessory information obtained in 1901. By the provisions of the Mortgage Law, under which this possessory information was obtained (art. 394), it produced only those effects which the laws give to mere possession. The petition not having shown any title from the Government, and the land being agricultural, the case is governed by the decisions of this court in the cases of Valenton et al. vs. Murciano 1 (2 Off. Gaz., 434); Cansino et al. vs. Valdez et al. 2 (4 Off. Gaz., 488); and Tiglao vs. The Insular Government 3 (4 Off. Gaz., 747). In these cases it was held that the mere possession of land such as that in controversy in this case would give the possessor and title thereto as against the Government; in other words, that the statute of limitations did not run against the State in reference to its agricultural lands. The petitioner, however, insists that although the statute of limitations as such did not run against the Government of Spain in the Philippine Islands, yet a grant is to be conclusively presumed from immemorial use and occupation. To say that the presumption of a grant is presumption of law is, in our opinion, simply to say that it amounts to a statute of limitations; and for a court to hold that the statute of limitations does not run against the Government as to its public agricultural lands, and at the same time to hold that if a person has been in possession of such lands for thirty years it is conclusively presumed that the Government has given him a deed therefor, would be to make two rulings directly inconsistent with each other. Considered as a presumption of fact, the contention could not be sustained in this particular case. Here the surrounding circumstances are incompatible with the existence of a grant, It is known that for nearly three hundred years all attempts to convert the Igorots of the Province of

Benguet to the Christian religion completely failed, and that during that time they remained practically in the same condition as they were when the Islands were first occupied by the Spaniards. To presume as a matter of fact that during that time, and down to at least 1880, the provisions of the laws relating to the grant, adjustment, and sale of public were taken advantage of by these deeds from the Government for these lands would be to presume something which did not exist. The appellant says in his brief (p.10): The Igorot, no less than the American Indian, is an aborigine, and is equally ignorant of the forms of law and procedure necessary to protect his interests. There is, moreover, in the case evidence that in 1894 the petitioner sought to obtain title from the Government in accordance with the laws then in force. In 1901 he made a contract with Metalcalf A. Clarke, by the terms of which he agreed to sell the land to Clarke for 6,000 pesos when he obtained title thereto from the Government, and this contract he does not say that he is the owner, but simply that he is in possession thereof. The court below found that the land is now worth upwards of P50,000. The possession of the land has not been of such a character as to require the presumption of a grant. No one has lived upon it for many years. It was never used for anything but pasturage of animals, except insignificant portions thereof, and since the insurrection against Spain it has apparently not been used by the petitioner for any purpose. The petitioner relies upon the case of the United States vs. Chaves (159 U.S., 452) and the case of The United States vs.Chaves (175 U.S., 509). In the case of Hays vs. The United States (175 U.S. 248) the court said at page 261; But this presumption is subject to the limitation that where title is claimed from a deed which is shown to be void, it will not be presumed that there was an independent grant (Smith vs. Highbee, 12 Vermont,. 113), or where surrounding circumstances are inconsistent with the theory of a grant. (Townsend vs. Downer, 32 Vermont, 183). The substance of this doctrine is that lapse of time any be treated as helping out the presumption of a grant, but where a void grant is shown, it affords no presumption that another valid grant was made. Nor does such presumption arise if the surrounding circumstances are incompatible with the existence of a grant. In this case under consideration we can not find any evidence which justifies us in believing that a legal grant can have been made, and under those circumstances we can not consider possession since the date of the treaty as dispensing with the requirement that the title, if not perfect at that time, was one which the claimant would have a lawful right to make perfect had the territory not been acquired by the United States. In the case of Chaves vs. The United States (175 U.S., 552) the court made the following statement at page 562: Finally, it distinctly appears that the possession of the parties is insufficient in length of time to prove a valid title. In United States vs. Chaves (159 U.S., 452) the possession was under the claim of a grant made by the governor of New Mexico to the alleged grantees. The grant had been lost, but it had been seen and read by witnesses, and its existence had been proved by evidence sufficient, as we stated in the opinion (p. 460), to warrant the finding of the court below that the complainants title was derived from the Republic of Mexico, and was complete and perfect at the date when the United States acquired sovereignty in the territory of New Mexico, within which the land was situated. We do not question the correctness to the remarks

made by Mr. Justice Shiras in regard to evidence of possession and the presumptions which may under certain circumstances drawn as to the existence of a grant. We do not deny the right of the duty of a court to presume its existence in a proper case, in order to quiet a title and to give to long continued possession the quality of a rightful possession under a legal right. We recognized and enforced such a rule in the case of United States vs. Chaves decided at this term. in which the question is involved. We simply say in this case that the possession was not a duration long enough to justify any such inference. There is no proof of any valid grant, but on the contrary the evidence offered by the plaintiff himself and upon which the bases the title that he asks the court to confirm, shows the existence of a grant from a body which had no legal power to make it, and which, therefore, conveyed no title whatever to its grantee, and the evidence is, as given by the plaintiff himself, that it was under this grant alone that possession of the lands was taken. We can not presume (within the time involved in this case) that any other and valid grant was ever made. The possession of the plaintiff and of his grantors up to the time of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in 1848, had not been long enough to presume a grant. (Crispin vs. United States, 168 U.S., 208; Hayes vs. United States, 170 U.S., 637, 649, 653; Haysvs. The United States, ante 248.) The possession subsequently existing, we can not notice. Same authorities. As we understand it, it is well settled in the United States that prescription does not run against the Government as to its public lands in other words, that if a person desires to obtain title to the public lands of the United States situated within the boundaries of the States, he must do so in the way pointed out by the law. We do not understand that a person in possession of unsurveyed public lands in the State of Minnesota, for example, whose ancestors had occupied that the land for fortyh years, could maintain in court a claim that he was the legal owner of the lands by granted the land to his ancestors, a presumption founded not upon any proceedings taken in the General Land Office to acquire a patent thereto, but upon the mere possession for that length of time. The same is true of the public lands of Spain in the Philippine Islands. In the case of Valenton et al. vs. Marciano it was said: While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did the State remained the absolute owner. But in any event, and whatever the law may be elsewhere, it seems clear that this doctrine of presumptive grant can not apply to the Philippines in view of the Spanish legislation for the Indies. From time to time there were promulgated laws which required the person in possession of public lands to exhibit their titles or grants thereto. If these titles or grants were found to be good, they were confirmed, but if they were not, or if the persons had no grants or titles at all, they were evicted from the land. For example, in Law 14, title 12, 4, Recompilation of the Laws of the Indies, it is stated: We therefore order and command that all viceroys and presidents of pretrial courts designate, at such times as shall to them most expedient, a suitable period within which all possessors of tracts, farms, plantations, and estates shall exhibit to them and to the court officers appointed by them for this purpose their title deeds thereto. And those who are in possession by virtue of

proper deeds and receipts or by virtue of just prescriptive rights shall be protected, and all the rest shall be restored to us to be disposed of at our will. In the Royal Cedula of October 15, 1754, it was provided that any and all persons who, since the year 1700, and up to the date of promulgation and publication of said order, shall have occupied royal lands, whether or not the same shall be cultivated or tenanted, may, either in person or through their attorneys or representatives, appear and exhibit to said subdelegates the titles and patents by virtue of which said lands are occupied. Said subdelegates will designate as the period within which documents must be presented a term sufficient in length and proportionate to the distance the interested party may have to travel for the purpose of making the presentation. Said subdelegates will at the same time warn the parties interested that in term designated, without a just and valid reason therefor, they will be deprived of and evicted from their lands, and they will be granted to others. In the regulations of June 25, 1880, it was provided as follows: ART. 8. If the interested parties shall not ask an adjustment of the lands whose possession they are unlawfully enjoining within the time of one year, or, the adjustment having been granted by the authorities, they shall fail to fulfill their obligation in connection with the compromise, by paying the proper sum into the treasury, the latter will, by virtue of the authority vested in it, reassert the ownership of the Stated over the lands, and will, after fixing the whole thereof, proceed to sell at public auction that part of the same which, either because it may have been reduced to cultivation or is not located within the forest zone, is not deemed advisable to preserve as State forest reservations. 4 In the royal decree of the 13th of February, 1894, published in the Official Gazzette of Manila of the 17th of April, 01894, it is provided in article 4 as follows: ART. 4. The title to all agricultural lands which were capable of adjustment (composicion) under the royal decree of the 25th of June, 1880, but the adjustments of which decree in the Gaceta de Manila, will revert to the State. Any claim to such lands by those who might have applied for the adjustment of the same, but who have not done so as the above mentioned date, will not avail them in any way or at any time. In view of these provisions of the law, it seems to us impossible to say that as to the public agricultural lands in the Philippines there existed a conclusive presumption after a lapse of thirty or any other number of years that the Government of Spain had granted to the possessor thereof a legal title thereto. The plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926, the Public Land Act, for the reason that act is not applicable to the Province of Benguet. The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered accordingly and ten days thereafter the case be returned to the court below for execution. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur. Mapa, J., concurs in the result.

SECONDARY SOURCES ARTICLES Ancestral domain vs regalian doctrine First of 3 parts MANILA, Philippines?Eight years ago the Supreme Court was confronted with the issue whether ?ancestral domain? should be recognized as a legal category in Philippine jurisprudence. In the end, ancestral domain as a working legal category was upheld by a vote of 7-7. Notably, however, the seven who voted against it and four who voted for it are no longer in the Supreme Court. Thus debate about it today might be a different ballgame altogether. More than the matter of Court composition, however, is the expansion of the concept itself. Eight years ago the issue was largely about land and proprietary ownership. But, in the GRPMILF draft MOA, ?Ancestral domain, as a concept in the context of the GRP-MOA became more than just land and its proprietary ownership. The MOA-AD also had items that explicitly defined the Bangsamoro people?s identity and acknowledged their roots from a self-governing society in pre-Colonial Philippines. At the heart of the concept of AD was respect and acknowledgment, not only of the Bangsamoro people?s rights and freedoms, but also vested property rights and religious and cultural liberties of other peoples.? Put succinctly, it became about both dominium and imperium. And this is what made the matter complicated enough to make some politicians climb the wall and rush the Court to issue a TRO. The dominium part was difficult enough, as evidenced by the 7-7 vote of eight years ago; and the imperium part was made more difficult by time-tested concepts of both constitutional law and international law now being confronted by embryonic legal concepts arising out of the proliferation of peace agreements which even now are being labeled as lex pacificatoria. But let us begin from where it began. The Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias started it all. The Spanish Crown put it thus: ?We, having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands, territories, and possessions not heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held without proper and true deeds of grant be restored to us as they belong to us, in order that after reserving before all what to us or to our viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for public squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into consideration not only their present condition, but also their future and their probable increase, and after distributing to the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may wish.? Thus was asserted the regalian doctrine. The Spanish king claimed ownership of everything of value in the Indies or colonies thereby stripping natives of their ancestral rights to land. Philippine courts, all the way to the Supreme Court even after the arrival of the Americans, followed the regalian doctrine.

Then came in 1906 Cario vs. Insular Government, a decision penned by Justice Holmes, reversing a decision that had gone all the way to the Philippine Supreme Court. The case involved the claim by a native Ibaloi to ownership antedating colonial times. Justice Holmes wrote: ?It is true that Spain, in its earlier decrees, embodied the universal feudal theory that all lands were held from the Crown, and perhaps the general attitude of conquering nations toward people not recognized as entitled to the treatment accorded to those in the same zone of civilization with themselves. It is true, also, that in legal theory, sovereignty is absolute, and that, as against foreign nations, the United States may assert, as Spain asserted, absolute power. But it does not follow that, as against the inhabitants of the Philippines, the United States asserts that Spain had such power. When theory is left on one side, sovereignty is a question of strength, and may vary in degree. How far a new sovereign shall insist upon the theoretical relation of the subjects to the head in the past, and how far it shall recognize actual facts, are matters for it to decide.? Whereupon the new sovereign through Justice Holmes ruled in favor of Cario and ordered the registration of the 148 hectares in Baguio Municipality in his name. Justice Holmes recognized that Cario had ?native title? to the land, saying: ?The Province of Benguet was inhabited by a tribe that the Solicitor-General, in his argument, characterized as a savage tribe that never was brought under the civil or military government of the Spanish Crown. It seems probable, if not certain, that the Spanish officials would not have granted to anyone in that province the registration to which formerly the plaintiff was entitled by the Spanish Laws, and which would have made his title beyond question good. Whatever may have been the technical position of Spain it does not follow that, in the view of the United States, he had lost all rights and was a mere trespasser when the present government seized his land. The argument to that effect seems to amount to a denial of native titles through an important part of the Island of Luzon, at least, for the want of ceremonies which the Spaniards would not have permitted and had not the power to enforce.? The Cario decision notwithstanding, however, the 1935 Constitution embodied the regalian doctrine. So did the 1973 Constitution and now the 1987. Can ancestral domain and regalian doctrine stand together? (To be continued)

Ancestral domain vs Regalian doctrine Second of 3 parts By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 20:46:00 09/29/2008

MANILA, Philippines?Eight years ago the Supreme Court was confronted with the issue whether ?ancestral domain? should be recognized as a legal category in Philippine jurisprudence. In the end, ancestral domain as a working legal category was upheld by a vote of 7-7. Notably, however, the seven who voted against it and four who voted for it are no longer in the Supreme Court. Thus debate about it today might be a different ballgame altogether. More than the matter of Court composition, however, is the expansion of the concept itself. Eight years ago the issue was largely about land and proprietary ownership. But, in the GRPMILF draft MOA, ?Ancestral domain, as a concept in the context of the GRP-MOA became more than just land and its proprietary ownership. The MOA-AD also had items that explicitly defined the Bangsamoro people?s identity and acknowledged their roots from a self-governing society in pre-Colonial Philippines. At the heart of the concept of AD was respect and acknowledgment, not only of the Bangsamoro people?s rights and freedoms, but also vested property rights and religious and cultural liberties of other peoples.? Put succinctly, it became about both dominium and imperium. And this is what made the matter complicated enough to make some politicians climb the wall and rush the Court to issue a TRO. The dominium part was difficult enough, as evidenced by the 7-7 vote of eight years ago; and the imperium part was made more difficult by time-tested concepts of both constitutional law and international law now being confronted by embryonic legal concepts arising out of the proliferation of peace agreements which even now are being labeled as lex pacificatoria. But let us begin from where it began. The Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias started it all. The Spanish Crown put it thus: ?We, having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands, territories, and possessions not heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held without proper and true deeds of grant be restored to us as they belong to us, in order that after reserving before all what to us or to our viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for public squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into consideration not only their present condition, but also their future and their probable increase, and after distributing to the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may wish.? Thus was asserted the regalian doctrine. The Spanish king claimed ownership of everything of value in the Indies or colonies thereby stripping natives of their ancestral rights to land.

Philippine courts, all the way to the Supreme Court even after the arrival of the Americans, followed the regalian doctrine. Then came in 1906 Cario vs. Insular Government, a decision penned by Justice Holmes, reversing a decision that had gone all the way to the Philippine Supreme Court. The case involved the claim by a native Ibaloi to ownership antedating colonial times. Justice Holmes wrote: It is true that Spain, in its earlier decrees, embodied the universal feudal theory that all lands were held from the Crown, and perhaps the general attitude of conquering nations toward people not recognized as entitled to the treatment accorded to those in the same zone of civilization with themselves. It is true, also, that in legal theory, sovereignty is absolute, and that, as against foreign nations, the United States may assert, as Spain asserted, absolute power. But it does not follow that, as against the inhabitants of the Philippines, the United States asserts that Spain had such power. When theory is left on one side, sovereignty is a question of strength, and may vary in degree. How far a new sovereign shall insist upon the theoretical relation of the subjects to the head in the past, and how far it shall recognize actual facts, are matters for it to decide.? Whereupon the new sovereign through Justice Holmes ruled in favor of Cario and ordered the registration of the 148 hectares in Baguio Municipality in his name. Justice Holmes recognized that Cario had ?native title? to the land, saying: ?The Province of Benguet was inhabited by a tribe that the Solicitor-General, in his argument, characterized as a savage tribe that never was brought under the civil or military government of the Spanish Crown. It seems probable, if not certain, that the Spanish officials would not have granted to anyone in that province the registration to which formerly the plaintiff was entitled by the Spanish Laws, and which would have made his title beyond question good. Whatever may have been the technical position of Spain it does not follow that, in the view of the United States, he had lost all rights and was a mere trespasser when the present government seized his land. The argument to that effect seems to amount to a denial of native titles through an important part of the Island of Luzon, at least, for the want of ceremonies which the Spaniards would not have permitted and had not the power to enforce.? The Cario decision notwithstanding, however, the 1935 Constitution embodied the regalian doctrine. So did the 1973 Constitution and now the 1987. Can ancestral domain and regalian doctrine stand together? (To be continued)

Ancestral domain vs Regalian doctrine Third (last) of 3 parts By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 04:06:00 10/06/2008 MANILA, Philippines Senator Flavier continued his sponsorship speech on the Ipra Law thus: The IPs are the offsprings and heirs of the peoples who have first inhabited and cared for the land long before any central government was established. Their ancestors had territories over which they ruled themselves and related with other tribes. These territories-the land-include people, their dwelling, the mountains, the water, the air, plants, forest and the animals. This is their environment in its totality. Their existence as indigenous peoples is manifested in their own lives through political, economic, socio-cultural and spiritual practices. The IPs culture is the living and irrefutable proof to this. Their survival depends on securing or acquiring land rights; asserting their rights to it; and depending on it. Otherwise, IPs shall cease to exist as distinct peoples. To make the long story short, Flaviers Senate Bill No. 1728 was carried by 21 senators with neither a vote against nor an abstention. Its House counterpart, House Bill No. 9225, authored by Rep. Gregorio Andolana of North Cotabato, was approved with no objection. These now form the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. At the heart of Ipra are the concepts of ancestral domain and ancestral land. These too are central to the rejected GRP-MILF draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Ipra defines ancestral domain as referring 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, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators. 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, continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots. Ancestral land, therefore, is narrower than ancestral domain which refers to more than just land. But the important element of these concepts is that both ancestral domain and ancestral land are considered private and do not come under the public domain. And as the MOA-AD pointed out, both the GRP and the MILF were in agreement on this on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Cruz v. DENR in 2000.

When the Ipra Law was challenged before the Supreme Court in Cruz v. DENR, the central objection to its constitutionality was that it unlawfully deprived the State of ownership over lands of the public domain as well as of minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine still embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. Those who opposed the law argued that the Cario decision could not be superior to the will of the sovereign people expressed in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Moreover, as to the Constitutions reference to the applicability of customary law, it was argued that what was meant was that Congress should look closely into the customary laws and, with specificity and by proper recitals, hew them to, and make them part of, the stream of laws and publish them in order to satisfy the due process clause. The main contention of those who defended the Ipra Law, however, was that, even accepting jura regalia, Spain could claim dominium only over unoccupied and unclaimed portions of the islands. The defenders therefore, arguing from the due process clause, recognized the existence of native title prior to arrival of the colonists. Ipra defined native title as referring to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest. Moreover, Ipra still kept for the State control over natural resources even in ancestral domain. As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court voted 7 to 7 on unconstitutionality, thus failing to muster a majority to declare the law unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the composition of the Supreme Court has changed, and change in composition can result in alteration of doctrine. In my column of Sept. 8 I discussed the Ipra procedure for its implementation. It will not be easy, especially with the intrusion of the governance aspect introduced by the MOA-AD.

INTERNET ARTICLES http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/regalian-doctrine-versus-rps-mining-industry-andeconomic-progress/

Regalian Doctrine Versus RPs Mining Industry and Economic Progress MARCH 3, 2012

A recent conference on minings impact on the Philippine economy and ecology has become one of the hottest, if not thehottest, topics in the business world. During that confab, the countrys business sector conceded that the government must regulate the mining industry. While arguing that we cant live without mining, famous businessman Manny V. Pangilinan said that the mining industry was not perfect, thus it must be regulated by both national and local governments. A former government official said he was in favor of mining but under very strict parameters. In effect, what these influential people were saying is: OK. Mining is good, but it must be regulated and it must be for the good of society. These statements, if carefully evaluated, operate on the premise that the countrys mining lands or mineral resources are owned by the state. Thus, nobody owns them. They can only be given by the state through license, contract, or grant. They cannot be expropriated. This gives the state, which is the sole owner of lands of public dominion, the authority to regulate the mining sector pursuant to the Constitution and to the laws enacted or to be enacted by our lawmakers. The primitive, colonial Regalian Doctrine But such a statist notion is founded on a single primitive, royalist concept, which has all the trappings of European collectivism or statism. This concept is called the Regalian Doctrine first introduced to our political system by the Spaniards through the Royal Decree of 13 February 1894 or the Maura Law. According to this doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State. This system is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution under Article 12, Section 2, which states: All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.

The above-mentioned Constitutional provision is the main reason why the countrys mining industry is one of the most regulated industries in the world. In fact, almost all mining countries of the world, except the United States, follow this Regalian Doctrine. To understand the evil of this doctrine, as well as its impact on the countrys mining sector and on the concept of property rights, it is imperative to look at its historical background and how free countries, particularly the United States, rejected its conceptual and political basis. As already stated, the Regalian Doctrine, which was apparently a colonial instrument, is the principle that all natural resources belong to the state. Under this system, the Philippine islands were considered Crown properties or possessions. Through this colonial tool the entire territory was practically owned by the Spanish Crown, and all lands therein could only be disposed of or granted to individuals or entities through the will of the Crown. The doctrine and the feudal system In effect, it was this colonial principle that established and helped propagate the feudal system in the 18th century, wherein most of the lands were owned by the Catholic Church and by early feudal lords. Historian Samuel Tan wrote: Under the Regalian Doctrine, the Philippine Islands were Spanish possessions and all lands therein were Crown lands disposable to individual, institutions, or corporations as the Crown willed in the form of encomiendas and/or landed estates called haciendas, together with the services and tributes of the native inhabitants who had lived in the lands as their ancestral homelands.[1] The first victims of the doctrine were the early settlers who owned and occupied their lands since time immemorial. As Owen Lynch and Kirk Talbott correctly observed: The Maura Act highlighted the colonial regimes insensitivity to the plight and potential of the colonys poor rural majority. By empowering the colonial officials to deny legal recognition of community-based property rights, the Maura act reneged on Spains thre-centuries-old (albeit largely ignored) commitment to respect such traditions, thus disenfranchising several millions of rural farmers.[2] This feudal system favored a few lucky men the caciques who acquired legal titles through collaboration with the colonial regime. This government-sponsored injustice, caused by inequitable allocation of legal rights to natural resources, led to the first revolt against colonial rule in the country two years after the Maura rule was implemented in 1894. However in 1898 Spain lost to the United States, which ended its three-centuries-old rule in the Philippines.

Mythical doctrine as a convenient legal pretext Following the fall of the Spanish rule, the United States reinvented the Regalian Doctrine as a convenient legal pretext. According to Lynch and Talbott, the U.S. colonial regime, under the rule of the Democrats, concocted and promoted a legal myth now called the Regalian Doctrine in order to justify and perpetuate the expropriations based on the Maura Act of 1894.[3] This new lie asserted that Ferdinand Magellan acquired the early settlers property rights and sovereignty when he planted a cross on a small island known as Mactan in 1521. Lynch and Talbott argued: The mythical Regalian Doctrine provided the new colonial regime with a convenient legal pretext for claiming ownership of more than 90 percent of the Philippines total land mass. It likewise nurtured the largely unrealized hope of senior U.S. colonial officials who believe that they could lure U.S. corporations especially sugar-cane-growing enterprises to the Philippines by providing them with legal rights over large tracts of fertile land.[4] Certainly those senior U.S. colonial officials were part of the then dominant Democratic party in the United States. It must be noted that the American society, from 1890s up to 1930s, had been undergoing drastic political changes now known as the progressive era. During that dark period, the United States dramatically departed from its founding principles the Republican principles of limited government, free market capitalism, and non-intervention. Doctrine repugnant to property right In 1909, a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court (Carino v. Insular Government) rejected the Regalian Doctrine; however, the Manila-based government largely ignored said ruling.[5] In the landmark case Carino v. Insular Government, the Court declared that the land occupied by the Philippines since time immemorial was never legally public land. Justice Holmes, who penned the ponencia, stressed that even if Spanish Crown refused to recognize the property rights of the early inhabitants, it did not follow that, in the view of the United States, [they] had lost all rights and [were] merely trespasser[s]. However, contrary to the general notion that the Maura Law mandated the confiscation of a right, Holmes clarified that the Spanish law merely withdraw the privilege to register rights.[6] The U.S. Court considered the doctrine repugnant, noting that the argument seems to amount to a denial of native titles for the want of ceremonies which the Spaniards would not have permitted and had not the power to enforce.[7] Nealy 100 years later the ruling in Carino became the philosophical basis of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997.

The Carino doctrine states: Every presumption is and ought to be against the Government in a case like the present. It might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to have been public land. Regalian doctrine the philosophical basis of IPRA My understanding is that the controlling principle laid down in Carino repudiated the Regalian Doctrine and empowered and affirmed the American concept of individualism and property rights. In fact, the cases ratio decidendi is antithetical to the doctrine, and what is clear is that the Carino ruling considered the it repugnant to peoples property rights, a principle that should have served as a philosophical guide to the then Manila-based regime to reject, destroy, and repudiate this colonial, statist system.However, as stated above, the countrys early political leaders in Manila simply ignore Carinos ruling strongly founded on the principle of individuals property rights. The problem with IPRA is that the well-intentioned idea of protecting indigenous communities institutionalizes preferential treatment of so-called minority communities. The law should be applied to all. If these so-called indigenous people had the right to own ancestral lands and natural resources, then other communities should also be allowed by law to enjoy the same right or privileges (if thats what you call it). I repeat: the Carino ruling simply affirmed and empowered the property rights of every individual, not merely of so-called indigenous community people, and strongly repudiated the statist idea that all lands of public domain belong to the state. The legality or constitutionality of IPRA was challenged before the Court in Cruz v. DENR. The petitioner argued that the Act unlawfully deprived the State of ownership over lands of the public domain as well as of minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the Regalian Doctrine still embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. In ruling in favor of indigenous peoples right to their ancestral lands and ancestral domain, the Supreme Court, in effect, parodied King Philips royal mandate in 1594, wherein the latter specified that Grants of land to Spaniards be without injury to the natives and those which have been granted to their loss and injury be returned to their lawful owners.[8] American historians Montgomery and Glazer critiqued the doctrine in the following manner: First, it vests ownership and control of land and the resources therein in the hand of the State, to the prejudice of the same communities [indigenous people]. The only generally recognized exceptions to this general rule are lands which are already covered by documents of titles. Lands which are not so titled are treated as part of the public or government lands, or of the public domain.

Secondly, as a corollary to the above, the natural resources within these public lands are consequently under the control of the State.[9] Filipino nationalists maintained the status quo Since Philippine independence, the nationalist politicians chose to maintain the same system of land ownership and classification based on the Regalian Doctrine. This political choice largely maintained the status quo, albeit with a few modifications, since 1894, as land in the Philippines was either considered of private ownership or of public domain. Only agricultural lands were classified as disposable and inalienable. The Regalian Doctrine was largely emphasized in all the three constitutions adopted for the Philippine Republic in 1935, 1973, and 1987. If during the Spanish rule the entire Philippine territory was considered property of the Spanish Crown, today a reinvented Regalian Doctrine makes the State the property owner of all lands of the public domain, and this is the reason why the entire Philippine economy and almost all economic activities are heavily regulated. This is the reason why the new and previous constitutions heavily restricted foreign ownership of land and business. This royalist, colonial doctrinealong with its allied principles, namely, social justice, social equality, egalitarianism, national patrimony, and public welfare is the reason why this country remains poor. In fact, as most formerly socialistic countries in Asia embark on economic openness and liberalization, the Philippines is moving backwards, as its leaders refuse to give up these primitive, tribal principles. The case of La Bugal-Blaan The paramount- or evil- influence of the Regalian Doctrine was clearly demonstrated in La Bugal-Blaan v. DENR. In this landmark case, the Court asserted the authority of the Regalian Doctrine enshrined in Article XII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and declared that RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is unconstitutional for allowing fully foreign owned corporations to exploit Philippine natural resources. Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions that authorized the State grant licenses, concessions, or leases for the exploration, exploitation, development or utilization of natural resources, the 1987 Constitution merely permits foreign owned corporations to provide technical or financial assistance to the State for large scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. The Supreme Court held: In any case, the constitutional provision allowing the President to enter into FTAAs with foreign-owned corporations is an exception to the rule that participation in the nations natural resources is reserved exclusively to Filipinos. Accordingly, such provision must be construed strictly against their enjoyment by non-Filipinos. In this age of globalization and technological innovation, we arbitrarily, capriciously limit foreign participation in our ailing economy and industries when most governments the world over allow

Filipinos to invest and buy lands in their respective countries. Without a doubt, Philippine protectionism is in violation of the principle of reciprocity in international law. It is our mediocre, anti-reality, anti-economics protectionism anchored on the statist principles of egalitarianism, Regalian dogma, and social justice that have been driving our economy into the ground. Freedom for the mining sector The mining industry, including all other industries, in this country should be free from the shackles of these instruments of statism or collectivism. With all due to respect to some of our industrialists and businessmen in the mining industry who have clear conscience and who have honestly achieved their economic success, the only solution is economic freedom under a free market system and the only way to achieve this goal is through constitutional revision. Contrary to views and advocacy of some of the countrys business elites, the idea of publicprivate partnership will only give coercive political power to politicians, both in the national and local government, to use the same power against unarmed businessmen. There is a big distinction between political power and economic power. Political power in business is that which empowers or authorizes any politician to arbitrarily regulate economic activities and to crackdown on what some potential central planners deem as activities inimical to the interest of the whole society. On the other hand, economic power is that power held by any businessman who engages in business or any kind of economic activity. It is the power to persuade or to convince the people who are essentially the consumers to buy or patronize ones product or service. Under a free market system, consumers vote with their money, and every dollar spent on any product or service constitutes a separate vote. Thats the only power held and enjoyed by every businessman. The evil idea of public-private partnership It is the idea of public-private partnership that destroys freedom in the markets and that paves the way for the road to serfdom, wherein any favored or politically connected businessman, also called a crony, acquires economic monopoly or cartel through government help and protection. History has it that all coercive, destructive monopolies were caused and created by governments. To understand why economic freedom is the best and only moral solution to our mining industry and to the countrys current economic ills, it is necessary to look at the history of mining and of mining law and to know the unintended consequences of political regulation of mining industry. How freedom led to mining boom in the U.S.

In the early years of the United States, which is the birthplace of free market capitalism, some of its ceded states were acquired from Mexico and France both of which had long-established mining laws, which carried the influence of the Regalian Doctrine. The sway of this colonial doctrine, which was paramount in these countries, had been said to be at odds with the United States Anglo-Saxon common-law system. The American common-law system gives a landowner a right to the minerals beneath the surface of his land property. According to Jesse Hoover, who wrote a compelling book titled The Economics of Mining: The Regalian Doctrine did not prevail, and therefore a patent from the federal government has ordinarily carried with it the right both to hold the surface of the property and to mine all minerals beneath the surface. Title vests in the patentee absolutely, and under most conditions the land becomes private property.[10] Mining claims and statist regulations of the mining industry were virtually non-existent in the early free market years of the United States. Such mining claims and regulations first existed in Europe and in Latin America, wherein the Regalian Doctrine, or the notion that mineral wealth pertains to the Crown, prevailed. In 1807 the U.S. Congress started leasing mining lands, however, the results were disappointing that it decided to abandon the system in 1847. Hoover said that miners began to search for a mining sanctuary that guaranteed them freedom from government restriction and intervention. He wrote: When miners from all parts of the world flocked to the Pacific Coast the mineral lands were unsurveyed and there was no federal administration or restriction of mining in the public domain. Regulations were worked out by small groups of miners in the various districts. These men, ignorant of precedents and principles, met together and passed rules which were the outgrowth of the needs of the hour in rude times and were based merely upon expediency. These early codes have been termed by R.W. Raymond, a writer of greatest authority, the law of lariat.[11] Hoover then quoted Raymond as saying: With the lariat they measures the distance and assigned to each miner along the gold-bearing gulch a double portion to the discoverer, and a single portion to his successors, in the order of their coming. With the lariat, they hung, after such due process of law as was available, the rascal who stole a horse, or a bag of gold-dust, or a mining claim, or killed another man without giving him a fair notice and a fair notice and a chance to defend himself.[12] Objective law, not regulations However, I strongly disagree with Hoovers description of these early miners as having an imperfect knowledge of law and history. In my own opinion, these men who loved freedom

clearly understood the proper concept of law. That the law is all about human survival and selfpreservation. That is, a law should not be against human nature and survival it should not be against mans mind and reality. A law that is anti-mind and anti-reality is not a law, but an antilaw. Nevertheless, Hoover correctly observed that these early miners had a strong sense of justice, as they keenly felt that labor and pains of discovering a gold deposit should be generously rewarded. They therefore gave priority to the discoverer, and allowed him a double claim along the gulch. That statement reminds me of how the Philippine government and the anti-mining, anti-mind, anti-reality mob treat people in the mining industry, particular foreign investors who are willing to share their technical know-how, technologies, and wealth with Filipinos. These technical people are being publicly criticized by Filipino throwbacks who just cant understand the crucial, indispensable role of mining in human life. Yet what these clueless anti-mining leftists do not understand is that their lives and survival on earth largely depend upon the people in the mining industry. Yes, the future lies in the ability and willingness of some people to mine earths hidden resource and then transform the same into an actual wealth. Americas early mining industry did not succeed through government help or government regulations. It succeeded by searching and then valuing freedom, which was unfortunately eroded during Americas progressive era. Its no surprise that America became the most economically prosperous nation on earth. All credit must go to Americas Founding Fathers who understood and valued the concepts of limited government, individual rights, and economic freedom. The real enemy is this Regalian principle, which is one of the root causes of injustice, poverty, and statism in the Philippines.

[1] Tan, S.K. (2011) The Muslim South and Beyond, Quezon City, Philippines: UP Press. [2] Lynch, O. and Talbott, K. (1995) Balancing Acts: Community-based Forest Management,World Resource Institutte, [Online], Available athttp://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABX171.pdf [2 March 2012] [3] Ibid, pp. 44. [4] Ibid, pp. 45. [5] Carino v. Insular Governmnt, 212 U.S. 449 (1909). [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid. [8] van den Top, G. (2003) The Social Dynamics of Deforestations in the Philippines: Actions, Options and Motivations, NIAS Press.

[9] Montgomery, J.D. and Glazer, N. (2002) Sovereignty under challenge: how governments respond, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. [10] Hoover, J. (1948) The Economics of Mining (Third Edition): Value Organization Management, California: Stanford University Press. [11] Ibid, pp. 366. [12] Ibid, 367.