Isagani Cruz vs.

Secretary of DENR
G.R. No. 135385; December 6, 2000; EN BANC PER CURIAM
Topic: Sovereignty
Doctrine: The state has the right to govern and the right to own properties
and may regulate the exploitation, development and utilization of its natural
resources as it may deem fit in exercise of the general welfare clause.

Finally, petitioners assail the validity of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP
Admin Order No. 1, series of 1998, which provides that "the administrative
relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is characterized as a
lateral but autonomous relationship for purposes of policy and program
coordination." They contend that said Rule infringes upon the Presidents
power of control over executive departments under Section 17, Article VII of
the Constitution.

Facts:
This is a suit for prohibition and mandamus assailing the constitutionality of
certain provisions of of R.A. 8371, otherwise known as Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing Rules.

Respondents and Intervenors:

Respondents Chairperson and Commissioners of the National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the government agency created under the
IPRA to implement its provisions, filed their comment, in which they defend
the constitutionality of the IPRA and pray that the petition be dismissed for
lack of merit.

Petitioners:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition
and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of
certain provisions of R.A. 8371 IPRA, and its IRR.

Respondents Secretary of the DENR and Secretary of the DBM filed through
the Solicitor General a consolidated Comment. The Solicitor General is of the
view that the IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants
ownership over natural resources to indigenous peoples and prays that the
petition be granted in part.

Petitioners argued that certain provisions of IPRA 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. Such violations
are, among others: it provides for rights of indigenous people over the
ancestral domains and its right to enter into agreements with nonindigenous
peoples for the development and utilization of natural resources
Petitioners also contented that, by providing for an all-encompassing
definition of "ancestral domains" and "ancestral lands" which might even
include private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) violate
the rights of private landowners.
In addition, petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA defining the
powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making customary law applicable to
the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands
on the ground that these provisions violate the due process clause of the
Constitution.

A group of intervenors, composed of Sen. Juan Flavier, one of the authors of

the IPRA, Mr. Ponciano Bennagen, a member of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission, and the leaders and members of 112 groups of indigenous
peoples (Flavier, et. al), joined the NCIP in defending the constitutionality of
IPRA.
CHR likewise intervened as Amicus Curiae. The CHR asserts that IPRA is an
expression of the principle of parens patriae and that the State has the
responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a
serious disadvantage like indigenous peoples. For this reason it prays that
the petition be dismissed.
On March 23, 1999, another group, Haribon, et al., also intervened.They
agree with the NCIP and Flavier, et al. that IPRA is consistent with the
Constitution and pray that the petition for prohibition and mandamus be
dismissed.
All the motions for intervention were granted.

ISSUE:
WON certain provisions of IPRA with respect to ancestral lands are
unconstitutional
HELD: (Constitutional)
Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition and Seven (7) other members of the
Court voted to grant the petition. As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7)
and the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated
upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
the petition is DISMISSED.
Separate Opinion
(Note: Focus on Justice Punos Opinion because it falls under the topic of
sovereignty)
Justice Puno:
The capacity of the State to own or acquire property is the state's power
of dominium. This was the foundation for the early Spanish decrees
embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia. The "Regalian Doctrine" or jura
regaliais a Western legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards
into the country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas.
As owner of the natural resources, the State is accorded primary power
and responsibility in the exploration, development and utilization of
these natural resources. The State may directly undertake the exploitation
and development by itself, or, it may allow participation by the private sector
through co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements.
These agreements may be for a period of 25 years, renewable for another 25
years. The State, through Congress, may allow the small-scale utilization of
natural resources by Filipino citizens. For the large-scale exploration of these
resources, specifically minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils, the State,
through the President, may enter into technical and financial assistance
agreements with foreign-owned corporations.
Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the
ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral
domains. The right of ICCs/IPs in their ancestral domains

includes ownership, but this "ownership" is expressly defined and

limited in Section 7 (a):
The ICCs/IPs are given 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." It will
be noted that this enumeration does not mention bodies of water not
occupied by the ICCs/IPs, minerals, coal, wildlife, flora and fauna in
the traditional hunting grounds, fish in the traditional fishing
grounds, forests or timber in the sacred places, etc. and all other
natural resources found within the ancestral domains. Indeed, the
right of ownership under Section 7 (a) does not cover
"waters, minerals, coal, petroleumand other mineral oils, all
forces of potential
energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna and
all other natural resources" enumerated in Section 2, Article XII
of the 1987 Constitution as belonging to the State.
Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains
with the State and the ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to "manage
and conserve" them for future generations, "benefit and share" the
profits from their allocation and utilization, and "negotiate the terms
and conditions for their exploration" for the purpose of "ensuring
ecological and environmental protection and conservation measures."
Simply stated, the ICCs/IPs' rights over the natural resources take the
form of management or stewardship. For the ICCs/IPs may use these
resources and share in the profits of their utilization or negotiate the terms for
their exploration. At the same time, however, the ICCs/IPs must ensure that
the natural resources within their ancestral domains are conserved for future
generations and that the "utilization" of these resources must not harm the
ecology and environment pursuant to national and customary laws
Section 57 is not a repudiation of the Regalian doctrine. Rather, it is an
affirmation of the said doctrine that all natural resources found within the
ancestral domains belong to the State. It incorporates by implication the
Regalian doctrine, hence, requires that the provision be read in the light of
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Interpreting Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Section 57 of IPRA, the

State, as owner of these natural resources, may directly undertake the

development and exploitation of the natural resources by itself, or in
the alternative, it may recognize the priority rights of the ICCs/IPs as
owners of the land on which the natural resources are found by
entering into a co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreement with them. The State may likewise enter into any of said
agreements with a non-member of the ICCs/IPs, whether natural or
juridical, or enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial assistance for the large-scale
exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and
other mineral oils, or allow such non-member to participate in its
agreement with the ICCs/IPs. If the State decides to enter into an
agreement with a non-ICC/IP member, the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shall ensure that the rights of the ICCs/IPs under
the agreement shall be protected. The agreement shall be for a period of 25
years, renewable for another 25 years.
The rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in
their ancestral domains merely gives the ICCs/IPs, as owners and occupants
of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the small-scale
utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their largescale development and exploitation. Section 57 does not mandate the State
to automatically give priority to the ICCs/IPs. The State has several options
and it is within its discretion to choose which option to pursue.

Justice Vitug:
The provisions Sections 7 and 57 of the IPRA, in their totality, are, in my
view, beyond the context of the fundamental law and virtually amount
to an undue delegation, if not an unacceptable abdication, of State
authority over a significant area of the country and its patrimony.
IPRA effectively withdraws from the public domain the so-called
ancestral domains covering literally millions of hectares. The notion of

community property would comprehend not only matters of proprietary

interest but also some forms of self-governance over the carved-out territory.
This concept is elaborated in Section 7 of the law which states that the rights
of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be
recognized and protected, subsumed under which would encompass the
right of ownership (paragraph a); the right to develop, control and use lands
and natural resources, including the right to negotiate the terms and
conditions for the exploration of natural resources in the areas for the
purpose of ensuring ecological, environmental protection and the
conservation measures, pursuant to national and customary laws; (par. b);
the right to stay in the territories (par. c); the right to return to their abandoned
lands. In case of displacement (par. d); the right to regulate entry of migrants
(par. e); the right to claim parts of ancestral domains previously reserved
(par. g); and the right to resolve land conflicts. In accordance primarily with
customary law (par. h). Concurrently, Section 57 states that ICCs/IPs shall be
given priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation
of any natural resources within the ancestral domains. These provisions of
IPRA, in their totality, are, in my view, beyond the context of the fundamental
law and virtually amount to an undue delegation, if not an unacceptable
abdication, of State authority over a significant area of the country and its
patrimony.

Justice Kapunan:
Petitioners, as citizens, possess the public right to ensure that the national
patrimony is not alienated and diminished in violation of the Constitution.
Since the government, as the guardian of the national patrimony, holds it for
the benefit of all Filipinos without distinction as to ethnicity, it follows that a
citizen has sufficient interest to maintain a suit to ensure that any grant of
concessions covering the national economy and patrimony strictly complies
with constitutional requirements. Thus, the preservation of the integrity and
inviolability of the national patrimony is a proper subject of a citizens suit.