ABSTRACT

The present study aims and endeavors to elucidate the cause and effect of the collision
between certain provisions of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 or PMA-1995 (RA 7942) and the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 or IPRA (RA 8371) with regard to the exploration,
development, and utilization of mineral resources in ancestral domains or lands. This collision
was exhibited in the landmark case of Cruz v Secretary (347 SCRA 128), which revolves around
the constitutionality of the IPRA, particularly on the priority rights of the indigenous peoples (IPs)
in the harvesting, extraction, development, or exploration of minerals and other natural
resources within their ancestral domains (Section 57, IPRA) and the primacy of the customary
laws of the IPs in resolving disputes involving them (Sections 63 and 65, IPRA). The collision
involved various conceptual considerations such as the Regalian Doctrine or jura regalia, the
indigenous concept of ownership, the legal concept of ownership, mineral resources
management, mine rehabilitation, and sustainable development. Following the Supreme Courts
indecisive upholding of the constitutionality of the IPRA, the collision even worsened.
To achieve its purpose, the present study revisited and evaluated the pertinent legal
documents and institutions, including the 1987 Constitution, PMA-1995, and IPRA. In this
regard, it constructed and utilized a general analytical tool that is composed of legal, political,
and social discourses. The study referred to this analytical tool as the Overarching Discourses
Framework (ODF). The ODF enabled the study to construct its main conceptual framework that
elucidates the collision as a complex interdependence of the legal, political, and social
discourses. The study referred to this conceptual framework as the PMA-1995 IPRA Collision
Framework (PICF). As regards the method of the study, both the ODF and the PICF utilized a
two-phased method of analysis, the first of which being a textual analysis, while the second
being a discourse analysis. The approach of the study, however, is guided by post-structuralism
and legal phenomenology, which emphasized the qualitative significance of confluences and
transitions as a binomial indicator of the stability of any institution under evaluation.
As its conclusion, the study recognized that the policy process, in the context of the
PICF, has not thoroughly pondered the possible issues and measures to ensure the balance
between the empowerment of the IPs and the equitable management of the mineral resources.
Some of these issues were even found out to be elementary not to be noticed. Furthermore, the
findings of the study illustrated that the current legal discourse is highly susceptible to
inequitable and indecisive compromises due to clamors from the social and political
discourses. This attests to the vicious practice of crafting band-aid remedies instead of lasting
resolutions in the Philippine policy process.