One of the most controversial laws enacted in the recent time is the Indigenous Peoples Rights

Act of 1997 (IPRA) which was enacted on October 29, 1997. The IPRA is a law dealing with a specific group
of people including the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) or the Indigenous Peoples (IPs). It allows
these people to obtain recognition of their right of ownership over ancestral lands and ancestral domains
by virtue of native title.

The law was based on the legal concept of ‘native title’ as enunciated in Cariño and justified under
the principle of parens patriae inherent in the supreme power of the State and deeply embedded in
Philippine legal tradition which declares that persons suffering from serious disadvantaged or handicap,
which places them in a position of actual inequality in their relation or transactions with others, are
entitled to the protection of the State.1

In general, the IPRA grants ownership rights to a territory comprising of the area or areas that
they can claim as their ancestral domain as well as the natural resources within the domain. It also grants
right to self-governance; social justice and human rights; and the right to cultural integrity. Under this law,
IPs shall have the right to accept or reject certain development interventions in their particular
communities.2

The rights under the IPRA3 are as follows:

1. Rights to Ancestral Domains and Lands - Ownership of native title; to develop and manage
lands and natural resources; stay in territories; in case of displacement; regulate entry of
migrants; claim reservations; safe and clean air and water; resolve conflicts through
customary law;
2. Rights to Self-Governance and Empowerment - Freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development; use commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution
institutions, peace building mechanisms and other customary laws; participate in
decision-making that may affect their lives and to maintain and develop their own
indigenous political structures; representation in policy-making bodies and local
legislative councils; determine their own priorities for development; to organize (IPO); to
be granted means to develop their own institutions and initiatives;
3. Right to Social Justice & Human Rights - Equal protection and non-discrimination. The
fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in the constitution and relevant
international instruments are guaranteed to ICCs/IPs; rights during armed conflict; non-
discrimination and equal opportunity and treatment; basic services; integrated system of
education; rights of women, youth and children
4. Right to Cultural Integrity - To preserve & protect their culture, traditions and institutions;
Access to various cultural opportunities; dignity and diversity of cultures; community
intellectual rights; religious, cultural sites and ceremonies; IKSPs and develop their own
science & technologies; protect their resources and FPIC; sustainable agro-technological
development; funds for archaeological, historical sites & artefacts.

1
Juan M. Flavier, ‘Sponsorship Speech of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act’ (1996). Senator Flavier is the principal
sponsor of Senate Bill No. 1728 and chaired the Committee on Cultural Communities, which together with the
Committees on Environment and Natural Resources, Ways and Means, and Finance, submitted joint Committee
Report No. 236 re: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1996 under the substitute bill – Senate Bill No. 1728.
2
Cruz v Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000
3
Sections 4 to 37 of IPRA
 The legislation of the IPRA raised concerns of its constitutionality and the abolishment of
ownership rights.

Under the concept of jura regalia, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or
implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and thereafter,
the Philippine Republic. In Spanish law, it refers to a right which a sovereign has over anything in which a
subject has a right to a property or propriedad. These were rights enjoyed during the feudal times by the
King as the sovereign.4

Likewise, Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution embodies the principle of regalia
doctrine as follows:

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 production-sharing 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.

Basically, the main issue on the constitutionality of such law is that it would go against the well-
established concept of jura regalia or the regalian doctrine.

In less than a year IPRA was passed, a constitutional challenge was lodged with the Supreme Court
by a former Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz, alleging that IPRA’s provisions on ICC’s/IPs ownership and
control and supervision over natural resources located in ancestral domains and lands are
unconstitutional in violation of the Regalian doctrine.5

In Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources6, petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar
Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality
of certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation
of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources
therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Court held the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. In
examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural
resources within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains
remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in

4
Pp. 2, Reviewer in Property Registration and Related Proceedings by Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, 2011
5
Supra
6
Ibid
their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources
are found, the right to the small scale utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in
their large scale development and exploitation.

Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain.
They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title
that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession
by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to
alienate the same.

However, the Court remained and equally divided court. The votes of the Justices were equally
divided and since the necessary majority was not obtained. Hence, the petition was dismissed and the
validity of the law was deemed upheld. It made no definitive pronouncement which could have been
considered dispositive of the legal challenges to the IPRA.