5.

Communication and Information in Nation Building

Art. 2, Sec. 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nationbuilding.
Art. 16, Sec. 10. The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of
Filipino capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and
aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the
country, in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press.
Art. 16, Sec. 11.
1. The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the
Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by
such citizens.
The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public
interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be
allowed.
2. The advertising industry is impressed with public interest, and shall be regulated by law for
the protection of consumers and the promotion of the g eneral welfare.
Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per centum of the capital
of which is owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry.
The participation of foreign investors in the g overning body of entities in such industry shall be
limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing
officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines.
Art. 18, Sec. 23. Advertising entities affected by paragraph (2), Section 11 of Article XV1 of this
Constitution shall have five years from its ratification to comply on a g raduated and
proportionate basis with the minimum Filipino ownership requirement therein.
Chavez v. Gonzales
G.R. No. 168338
Date of Promulgation: February 15, 2008
Ponente: Puno, CJ
Petition: Special Civic Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition.
Petitioners: Francisco Chavez
Respondents: Raul Gonzalez, in his capacity as the Secretary of the DOJ; and National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC)
Facts:
The case starts when Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told reporters that the opposition, in order
to destabilize the administration, is planning to release an audiotape of a mobile phone
conversation allegedly acquired through wire-taping between the President of the
Philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and a high-rankng official of the Commission on
Elections. Later in a Malacanang press briefing, he produced two conversations of the audio
file: 1) supposedly complete version and 2) an altered version which would suggest that the
president had instructed the COMELEC official to manipulate the election results in the
presidents favor. Atty. Alan Paguia, former counsel of deposed President Joseph Estrada, also
said he had with him an authentic tape recording of the conversation and it even included the
conversations of the President, FG Jose Miguel Arroyo, COMELEC Commissioner Garcillano
and the late Senator Barbers.
Secretary Gonzales, in another briefing, ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to
go after media organization who have been spreading, playing and printing the contents of the
said tape. He started with Inq7.net, a joint venture between the Philippine Daily Inquirer and

GMA7. After two days, NTC sent a press release which warned the radio and television
owner/operators to be mindful and observe the Anti-W iretapping Law. He also reminded the
companies that the permits (Provisional Authority and Certificate of Authority) issued to them by
the Government explicitly state that they [media companies] should not use their stations
for spreading false information or willful misrepresentation. Violation of this rule shall be
a j ust cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of their companies
licenses. NTC then had a dialogue with the Board of Directors of the Kapisanan ng mga
Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP) to assure the latter that NTCs press release did not violate the
constitutional freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press, and the right to information.
NTC clarified that what they are just asking from the media is to exercise press freedom
responsibly.
Alleging that the acts of the respondents are violations of the freedom on expression and of the
press, and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, Chavez filed a
petition to annul the v oid proceedings, and to prevent the respondents unlawful,
unconstitutional and oppressive exercise of authority.
The Supreme Court then said that the petitioner has not met the requisite legal standing since
he failed to establish a personal stake in the outcome of the issue but the SC will still decide on
the case since it involves serious legal questions that greatly impact on public interest.
Issues/Held:
WON the acts of the respondents abridge freedom of speech and of the press - YES
Ratio:
In order to decide on the case, Justice Puno first discussed in this Decision, the law on freedom
of speech, of expression, and of the press; types of speeches and their differing restraints
allowed by law; core concepts of different government regulations that may be used; difference
between print and broadcast media. In his discussion, it became apparent that a governmental
action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on content should be given
the strictest scrutiny with the government having the burden of overcoming the
presumed unconstitutionality of the actions in question through the use of the clear and
present danger rule. This rule requires that there must be a very substantive or extremely
serious evil related to freedom of speech that the g overnment sought to prevent in order to
justify its actions.
The great evil that the government wants to prevent is the airing of a tape recording that was
acquired through wire-tapping. But the respondents failed to comply with the requirements of
the clear and present danger test. Also, Justice Puno enumerated the respondents evidence
that fell short of satisfying the test:
1. various statements of the Press Secretary obfuscate the identity of the voices in the
tape recording
2. questionable integrity of the taped conversation
3. ambivalence of the whos and hows of the wiretapping act
4. uncertainty as to whether the airing of the audio violates the anti-wiretapping law
For this failure, the Court has no option but to uphold the exercise of free speech and free
press. There is no showing that the feared violation of the anti-wiretapping law clearly
endangers the national security of the State.
Decision:
Petition granted.
Notes:

Freedom of expression is a fundamental principle of every democratic government

and a preferred right that stands on a higher level than the substantive economic
freedom or other liberties.

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the

press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the g overnment
for redress of grievances. Article III, Section 4, 1987 Constitution
Constitutions basic guarantee of freedom to advocate ideas is not confined to the
expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by a majority.
Constitution has recognized four aspects of freedom of the press:
o
Freedom from prior restraint (refers to official governmental restrictions on
the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or
dissemination)
o
Freedom from punishment subsequent to publication
o
Freedom of access to information
o
Freedom of circulation
Restraints on freedom of speech and expression are evaluated by either or a
combination of three tests:
o
Dangerous tendency doctrine
o
Balancing of interests tests
o
Clear and present danger rule

6. Autonomy of Local Governments

Cruz v. Sec. of Environment and Resources

G.R. No. L 135385
Date of Promulgation: December 6, 2000
Ponente: Per Curiam
Petition: Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus
Petitioners: Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa
Respondents: Sec. Environment and Natural Resources
Facts:
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371 (Indigenous Peoples
Rig hts Act of 1997). The petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the provisions that they
believe amounts to the deprivation of the States ownership over lands, minerals, and other
natural resources as public domain, a violation of Sect. 2, Art. XII of Constituion. Petitioners
also claim that the turnover of ancestral domain and ancestral lands might entail the turnover
of private lands found in these areas, which is a violation of the private landowners rights.
Issues/Held:
WON The RA 8371 is unconstitutional. (tied)

7. Recognition of Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities

Art. 2, Sec. 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural
communities within the framework of national unity and development.

Decision:
The Court was split with a 7-7 decision. The case was rediliberated but the results were the
same. As a result, by Rule 56, Sect 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedures, the petition is
DISMISSED.

Art. 6, Sec. 5(2). The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after
the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives
shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by
law, except the relig ious sector.

Opinions:
7 justices, including Justices Kapunan, Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago, and the Chief
Justice voted to dismiss the petition in their opinion that RA 8371 is constitutional. Justice
Mendoza voted to dismiss the petition on the basis that it does not raise a controversy and that
petitioners do not have locus standi.

Art. 12, Sec. 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national
development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities
to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.

The other 7 voted to grant the petition. Justice Panganiban expresses that Sections 3 (a)(b), 5,
6, 7 (a)(b), 8, and related provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. Justice Vitug on the
other hand expressed that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional.

Art. 13, Sec. 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship,
whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural
resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to
agriculture, subject to prior rig hts, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of
indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. The State may resettle landless farmers and
farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner
provided by law.
Art. 14, Sec. 17. The State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall
consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.
Art. 16, Sec. 12. The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on
policies affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall
come from such communities.
RA. No. 8371 (1997)

Puno:
A review of our sociology and history is required to appreciate the concepts of the Indigenous
Peoples Rig hts Act (IPRA)
The IPRA was enacted by Congress not only to fulfill the constitutional mandate of protecting
the indigenous cultural communities' right to their ancestral land but more importantly, to correct
a g rave historical injustice to our indigenous people.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IN THE PHILIPPINES
A) Law of the Indies
-The Regalian Doctrine or jura regalia is a Western legal concept introduced by Spain into the
country through Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedula.
-It supports the capacity of the State to own or acquire property is the state's power of
dominium. The Philippine lands became exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish
crown by virtue of discovery and conquest.
-December 10, 1898, under the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded to the U.S. all the rights, interests,
and claims over the territories of the Philippines.
In 1903, the Philippines as U.S. colony passes the first Public Land Act (Act. No. 926).

B) Valenton v. Murciano
-In the case of Velenton v Murciano in 1994, a land dispute between a current occupiers since
1860 with one who claims to have purchased the land in 1892.
The US Court concluded that the Spanish Government that preceded them required settlers on
public lands to obtain title deeds from the state, which has been continued by the US with No.
926.
C) Public Land Act and Torrens System
-No 926 governed the disposition of lands of the public domain. It prescribed rules and
regulations for the homesteading, selling, and leasing of portions of the public domain of the
Philippine Islands, and prescribed the terms and conditions to enable persons to perfect their
titles to public lands in the Islands.
It also provided for the "issuance of patents to certain native settlers upon public lands"

The Spaniards regarded it as their duty to civilize IPs. With them they brought the concept of
public domain. Also the conversion of many Filipinos to the Christian faith created a mutual
feeling of fear, suspicion, and hostility between Christian and non-Christian Filipinos.
The IPRA addresses centuries of neglect of our Indigenous Peoples.
Senator Juan Flavier (sponsor of the bill):
"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 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.
Senator Flavier proposed a bill based on two postulate:
1) the concept of native title
2) principle of parens patriae

The law operated on the assumption that the title to public lands belonged to the g overnment.
The 2nd Public Land Act (No. 2874) expanded the scope but limited exploitation of agricultural
lands to Filipinos and Americans.
Torrens System- requires that the g overnment issue an official certificate of title attesting to the
fact that the person named is the owner of the property described.
D) Constitution
-The Regalian doctrine was enshrined in the 1935 Constitution. One of the fixed and
dominating objectives of the 1935 Constitutional Convention was the nationalization and
conservation of the natural resources of the country.
-The 1973 and 1987 Constitution reiterated Regalian Doctrine both with Articles on National
Economy and Patrimony

Ancestral Domain v. Ancestral Land

-Ancestral Domain- All areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPscomprising lands, inland waters,
coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or
possessed by ICCs/IPs by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually
since time immemorial.
-Ancestral Lands- refers to land occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and
clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial
In short, Ancestral Domain includes everything to the area, including waters and natural
resources. Ancestral Land is restricted to land only.

The Constitution states that all natural resources on public or private lands belong to the State,
which PETITIONERS claim the IPRA violates.

IPRA gives the power to identify and delineate these ancestral domains and lands to the
National Commission of Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).
-The NCIP shall issue a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) or a Certificate of
Ancestral Land Title (CALT) to the community concerned.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT

The IPRA recognizes the existence of the indigenous cultural communities or indigenous
peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in Philippine society.

The CADT and CALT is a formal recognition of the ICCs rig hts over the domain or land. It is
evidence of private ownership of land by native title.
-With the native title, the IPRA declares the domain or land to have never been public land.

It g rants these people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral
lands, and defines the extent of these lands and domains. It is given under customary law,
which traces its origin to native title.

Carino v. Insular Government

In this case, a land dispute between an Ibaloi and the colonial government, Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes of the US Supreme Court held that:
-The US does not need to follow/continue Spanish law, that the decision over the Philippines
and the land issues that reside in must follow US law.
-There is no evidence that Spanish law did not recognize native titles.
-Decision ruling in favor of Carino

Rig hts given to ICCs/IPs include

the right to develop lands and natural resources
the right to stay in the territories
the right in case of displacement
the right to safe and clean air and water
the right to claim parts of reservations
the right to resolve conflict
the right to transfer land/property to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs
the right to redemption for a period not exceeding 15 years from date of transfer
Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous Peoples refer to a group of people or
homogeneous societies who have continuously lived as an organized community on
communally bounded and defined territory.
-In these communities there is no private ownership of land. The land belonged to the
community and individuals participated in that ownership through mutual sharing of resources.

Comparison with US Situation with Native Americans

American jurisprudence recognizes Natives rights to land they occupied before discovery by
Europeans.
-Discovery of lands was regarded as the acquisition of said lands, but mere acquisition did not
extinguish the Natives claims to the land.
As a rule, Indian lands are not included in the term "public lands"
IPRA and Ownership
For purposes of registration under the Public Land Act and Land Registration Act, the IPRA
converts ancestral land into agricultural land, which may be disposed by the State.
CADT recognizes the indigenous concept of ownership of the ICCs/IPs over their ancestral

domain.
Note: The concept recognizes the private but community property
-This does not mean co-ownership, the land is not partition between individuals. It is based on
indigenous customary laws, which claim that the domain belongs to the community for current
and future generations.
-Customary law is a primary source under the IPRA and is recognized in the Civil Code.
The IPRA also distinguishes land and natural resources. The natural resources still belong
to the State, the ICCs/IPs are merely granted the rights to manage them.
IPRA gives priority rights to ICCs/IPs to exploit any natural resource within their ancestral
domains. Priority, meaning they are given preferences. The State still owns the natural
resources and has say over the utilization of natural resources, especially if a 3rd party comes
into play.
With large-scale utilization of resources, the State, as owner of the resources, can:
1) May directly undertake the development and exploitation of the resources
2) Recognize the priority rights of ICCs/IPs by entering agreement with them
3) Enter into an agreement with a non-member of ICCs/IPs
4) May allow a non-member to participate in an agreement with ICCs/IPs
CONCLUSION
There is a g rowing concern over the rights of indigenous people in the international scene.
International institutions have recognized the need of policies that can accommodate IPs and
respect their rights. Also our 1987 Constitution formally recognizes their existence and declares
as a State policy the promotion of their rights within the framework of national unity.
THUS, PUNO VOTES TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE IPRA (dami sinabi)

Vitug:
-In terms of legal standing, the Court must take a liberal approach to recognize the legal
standing of nontraditional plaintiffs to raise constitutional issues that affect them.
-Assailed provisions include Section 3(a) of IPRA, which defines ancestral domain and land.
Ancestral domain include waters, coastal areas, and natural resources.
-IPRA effectively withdraws the status of public domain from so-called ancestral
domains.
-Section 57 of IPRA gives ICCs/IPs priority rights in exploitation of natural resources. This is
beyond the context of the fundamental law and amounts to undue delegation.
-Article XII of 1987 Constitution states that all natural resources shall be owned by
the State
-Sect. 57 is an unacceptable abdication of State authority over a significant area of
the country and patrimony
-The decision in Carina v Insular Government cannot override the collective will of the people
expressed in the Constitution.
Lastly, IPRA has several good points, but Congress must re-examine the law. There must be a
balance of interest between specific needs and the imperatives of national interest.
VITUG VOTES TO GRANT THE PETITION

Kapunan:

How can you own that which will outlive you? Only the race owns the land, because only the
race lives forever
IPRA must be construed in view of such presumption of constitutionality. Interpretation must
take into account the purpose of the law, which is to give life to the constitutional mandate that
recognizes and protects the rights of indigenous people.
ICCs form non-dominant sections of society, and are determined to preserve, develop, and
transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identities, as their basis
of their continued existence of peoples, all accordance with their own cultural patterns, social
institutions, and legal systems.
-This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into
the present, of one or more of the following factors:
1) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least part of them
2) Common ancestry with original occupants of land
3) Culture in general (religion, customs, lifestyles, livelihood, etc.)
4) Language
5) Residence in certain parts of the country
In Philippine constitutional law, "indigenous peoples" pertains to those groups of Filipinos who
have retained a high degree of continuity from pre-Conquest culture.
Centuries of colonial rule have created a distinction between the cultural majority and the g roup
of cultural minorities.
1 of every 6 Filipinos is a member of an ICC, but sadly IPs are one of the poorest sectors of
Philippine society. They have little voice in national politics and are the least protected from
economic exploitation.
Provisions allegedly violated
The framers of the 1987 Constitution saw this opportunity to actualize the ideals of people
empowerment and social justice and to reach out to these marginalized sectors.
-Sec. 22 Art 2. T he State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous peopl es within the framework of
nati onal uni ty and development.
-Sec. 5. Art 12 T he State, s ubject to the provis ions of thi s Constitution and national development policies and
programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their
economi c, social, and cultural well-being.
T he Congress may provide for the applicability of cus tomary laws governing property rights and relations in
determining the ownership and extent of anc estral domains
-Sec. 1. Art 13 T he Congress shall give the highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and
enhance the right of all the peopl e to human dignity, reduce social, economic and pol itical inequalities, and
remove cul tural i nequi ties by equi tably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
T he s tate s hall regulate acquisition, ownershi p, use and di sposition of property.
-Sec. 6. T he State s hall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewards hip, whenever applic able in
accordance with law, in the disposition and util ization of other natural resources , including lands of the public
domai n under leas e or concession, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of smal l settlers, and the rights of
indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
-Sec. 17 Art 14. T he State s hall recogni ze, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities
to preserve and develop thei r cul tures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider thes e rights in the
formulation of national plans and polic ies.
-Sec. 12. Art 16 T he Congress may create a consultative body to advis e the President on pol icies affecting
indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall come from s uch communities.

IPRA was enacted to implement these Constitutional provisions.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES
An "actual case or controversy" means an existing case or controversy which is both ripe for
resolution and susceptible of judicial determination.

This Court has recognized that a "public right," may be the subject of an actual case or
controversy.
-Petitioners have met the requisite standing as citizens and taxpayers and can bring the issue
to court before any injuries have occurred.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Primary Issues
The prime issue is the constitutionality of certain provisions of the IPRA, mainly Sections 3(a),
3(b), 5, 6, 7, 8, 57, 58 and 59.
These provision allegedly violate Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution
Under IPRA, indigenous peoples may obtain the recognition of their right of ownership over
ancestral lands and domains by virtue of native title. (ownership is the root issue)
*Bears stressing that a statute should be construed in harmony with, not in violation, of the
fundamental law.
Generally, under the concept of jura regalia, private title to a land must be traced to some grant,
expressed or implied, by the g overnment.
-The Regalian theory, however, does not negate native title to lands held in private ownership
since time immemorial. (Refer to Carino v Insular Government.)
-A distinction must be made between ownership of land under native title and ownership by
acquisitive prescription against the State.
-Ownership by virtue of native title presupposes that the land has been held by its possessorm
and his predecessors-in-interest in the concept of an owner since time immemorial. (It was
never public domain).
Legal history supports Carino doctrine.
-In the first expedition, the Spaniard did not intend to deprive natives of their property. Historical
documents that gives evidence that Spanish government recognized and respected native
property and titles.
-Under Treaty of Paris in December 10,1898, the US continued to recognize native title to land.
CONSTITUTION
Framers of the Constitution did not intend Congress to decide whether ancestral domains shall
be public or private property. They acknowledged that ancestral domains shall be treated as
private property, and that customary laws shall merely determine whether such private
ownership is by the entire indigenous cultural community, or by individuals, families, or clans
within the community.
The Framers never mentioned Carino in their deliberations, but that does not mean they did not
intend to adopt a concept of native title to land.
Also, it is important to note that the Constitution must be construed as a whole. Thus, the
provisions of the Constitution on State ownership of public lands, mineral lands and other
natural resources should be read together with the other provisions thereof which firmly
recognize the rights of the indigenous peoples.
Unconstitutionality of IPRA
-Petitioners claim that Sect 3(a) deprives State of natural resources by stating that it is included
in ancestral domain
-No, Sect. 3(a) merely defines what ancestral domain and land are. IPRA protects the
indigenous peoples rights and welfare in relation to the natural resources found within their
ancestral domains. Certain areas of ancestral domain may still be under administration of other
agencies of government, eg Department of Agrarian Reform.

-Petitioners also claim that provisions (specifically Sect 7(a) and 57) deny the State a dominant
role in the utilization of our natural resources by giving ICCs right to manage and conserve
them. Which violates Sect. 2, Article 12 of the Constitution.
-This provision should not be read in isolation. Since the constitution allows smallscale/large-scale mining by its citizens. Read in this manner, the rights given to ICCs are similar
to the participation of Filipino corporations undertaking mining activities. Through regulation and
imposition of requirements, the State continues to assume control of such activities.
-Also bears stressing that, priority rights given in Sect. 57 does not preclude the
State in undertaking mining activities in ancestral lands. It is meant to balance the interest of
national development and those of IPs.
*Note, that preferential treatment, which comes with priority rights, is nothing new. It is similar
to Sect. Art 13, which mandates the protections of the rights of fishermen.
-Petitioners contend that Sect. 56 aims to protect only the vested rights of indigenous peoples,
but not those who are not members of such communities.
- IPRA only requires is that these "property rights" already exist and/or vested upon
its effectivity.
- statute imposes strict procedural requirements for the proper delineation of
ancestral lands and ancestral domains as safeguards against the fraudulent deprivation of any
landowner of his land, whether or not he is member of an indigenous cultural community.
CONCLUSION
(1) The provisions of the IPRA (specifically Sections 3, paragraphs (a) and (b), 5, 6, 7, and 8)
affirming the ownership by the indigenous peoples of their ancestral lands and domains by
virtue of native title DO NOT diminish the States ownership of lands of the public domain,
because said ancestral lands and domains are considered as private land, and never to have
been part of the public domain, following the doctrine laid down in Cario vs. Insular
Government;195
(2) The constitutional provision vesting ownership over minerals, mineral lands and other
natural resources in the State is not violated by Sections 3, 5, 7, 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the IPRA
which grant certain rights to the indigenous peoples over the natural resources found within the
ancestral domains. The State retains full control over the exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources even with the g rant of said rights to the indigenous peoples,
through the imposition of requirements and conditions for the utilization of natural
resources under existing laws, (Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991 and the Philippine Mining Act of
1995)
(3) While the IPRA recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples with regard to their ancestral
lands and domains, it also protects the vested rights of persons, whether indigenous or nonindigenous peoples,
(4) The Due Process Clause of the Constitution is not violated by the provisions (Sections 40,
51-54, 62, 63, 65 and 66) of the IPRA which, among others, establish the composition of the
NCIP, and prescribe the application of customary law in certain disputes involving indigenous
peoples. The fact the NCIP is composed wholly of indigenous peoples does not mean
that it is incapable of being impartial.
(5) The provision of the Implementing Rules characterizing the NCIP as an independent agency
under the
Office of the President does not infringe upon the Presidents power of control under Section
17, Article VII of the Constitution, since said provision as well as Section 40 of the IPRA
expressly places the NCIP under the Office of the President.
KAPUNAN VOTES TO DIMISS PETITION AND UPHOLD CONSTITUTIONALITY OF IPRA

Mendoza:
CONCLUSION
The case at hand is not to enforce property rights or demand compensation, it is only to settle
what they believe to be a doubtful character of the law in question.
The judicial power cannot be extended to matters, which do not involve actual cases or
controversies without upsetting the balance of power among the three branches of the
government and erecting.
Note: The only instance where a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is when it operates in
the area of freedom of expression.
For the Court to exercise its power of review when there is no case or controversy is not only to
act without jurisdiction but also to run the risk that, in adjudicating abstract or hypothetical
questions, its decision will be based on speculation rather than experience.
Without a g enuine controversy a law, unless shown to be clearly repugnant of fundamental law,
are presumed to be v alid.

Indigenous peoples may have long been marginalized in Philippine politics and society. This
does not, however,
give Congress any license to accord them rights that the Constitution withholds from the rest of
the Filipino
people.
Congress is effectively mandating "reverse discrimination." In seeking to improve their lot, it
would be doing so at the expense of the majority of the Filipino people.
The law must help the powerless by enabling them to take advantage of opportunities and
privileges that are open to all and by preventing the powerful from exploiting and oppressing
them. This is the essence of social justice empowering and enabling the poor to be able to
compete with the rich and, thus, equally enjoy the blessings of prosperity, freedom and dignity.
PANGANIBAN VOTES TO GRANT PETITION AND DECLARE IPRA UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

MENDOZA VOTES TO DISMISS PETITION.

Panganiban:

8. Honest Public Service and Full Public Disclosure

Art. 2, Sec 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take
positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.

Agrees with ponente, Kapunan, that petitioners have shown an actual case or controversy.
Claims that IPRA is unconstitutional on 2 main points
1) It g rants rights of ownership over "lands of the public domain, waters, x x x and other
natural resources" which, under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, "are owned
by the State" and "shall not be alienated." I respectfully reject the contention that
"ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not public lands and have never been
owned by the State."
2) It defeats, dilutes or lessens the authority of the State to oversee the "exploration,
development, and utilization of natural resources," which the Constitution expressly
requires to "be under the full control and supervision of the State."

Art. 11, Sec. 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to
function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.
Art. 11, Sec. 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman, composed
of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy
each for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may
likewise be appointed.
Art. 11, Sec. 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other than the
Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman, according to the Civil Service Law.

True, our fundamental law mandates the protection of the indigenous cultural communities.
Such privileges, however, must be subject to the fundamental law.

Art. 2, Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

I cannot, however, agree to legitimize perpetual inequality of access to the nation's wealth or to
stamp the Court's imprimatur on a law that offends and degrades the repository of the very
authority of this Court - the Constitution of the Philippines.

Art. 11, Sec. 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often
thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities,
and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet,
the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional
offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be
disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.

The Constitution speaks of all people, not just the majority.

1935 Constitution embodied the Regalian Doctrine, which more definitively declared as
belonging to the State all lands of the public domain, waters, minerals and other natural
resources. W hich was carried over to the 1973 and 1987 Constitution
-Perceived lack of understanding of the cultural minorities cannot be remedied by conceding
the nations resources to their exclusive advantage. They cannot be more privileged simply
because they have chosen to ignore state laws.

Art. 7, Sec. 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the
state of his health. The members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign
relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied
access to the President during such illness.

In terms of ownership
The law declares that ancestral domains, including the natural resources found therein, are
owned by ICCs/IPs and cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed. Not only does it vest
ownership, as understood under the Civil Code; it adds perpetual exclusivity.

Art. 7, Sec. 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from
the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its
decision on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or
government-owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the
foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be provided by law.

Ownership need not be by virtue of a certificate of title, but simply by possession since time
immemorial.

Art. 12, Sec. 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation
of the monetary authority. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the
Government shall be made available to the public.
Art. 12, Sec. 2 (5). The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
Art. 6, Sec. 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon
assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall
notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a
proposed legislation of which they are authors.
Art. 6, Sec. 20. The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be
open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission
on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses for each
Member.
Art. 9-D, Sec. 4. The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress, within the
time fixed by law, an annual report covering the financial condition and operation of the
Government, its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and non-governmental entities subject to its audit, and recommend
measures necessary to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. It shall submit such other
reports as may be required by law.
Art. 3, Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to g overnment research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law.
Chavez v. PEA
G.R. No. 133250
Date of Promulgation: July 9, 2002
Ponente: Carpio, J.
Petition: mandamus with write of preliminary injunction and TRO
Petitioner/s: Francisco I. Chavez
Respondent/s: Public Estates Authority and AMARI Coastal Bay Development Corp.
Facts:
In 1973, the Commissioner on Public Hig hways entered into a contract with the Construction
and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) to reclaim Manila Bay areas and
construct Manila-Cavite Coastal Road.
In 1977, PEA (Public Estates Authority) President Marcos created the Public Estates Authority
(PEA) under P.D. 1084, which was tasked with developing and leasing reclaimed lands. These
lands were transferred to the care of PEA under P.D. 1085 as part of the Manila Cavite Road
and Reclamation Project (MCRRP). CDCP and PEA entered into an agreement that all future
projects under the MCRRP would be funded and owned by PEA.
By 1988, President Aquino issued Special Patent No. 3517 transferring lands to PEA. It was
followed by the transfer of three Titles (7309, 7311 and 7312) by the Register of Deeds of
Paranaque to PEA covering the three reclaimed islands known as the FREEDOM ISLANDS.
Subsequently, PEA entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a private
corporation to develop the Freedom Islands, which also required the reclamation of another
250 hectares of submerged areas surrounding the islands. PEA and AMARI entered the JVA,
through negotiation without public bidding, and then President Ramos approved it.

In 1996, Sen. Maceda denounced the JVA as the g randmother of all scams and so the
Senate committees investigated this and found that the lands were part of public domain which
havent been classified as alienable so PEA cannot alienate them, that the certificates of title of
the Freedom Islands are thus void, and that the JVA itself is illegal. President Ramos then
created a Legal Task Force to conduct a study on the legality of JVA, but it upheld the legality
of the JVA. Reports were published about the ongoing renegotiations between PEA and
AMARI.
In 1998, Frank Chavez, as taxpayer, filed a petition for mandamus with prayer for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO. He contends that:
1. The government will lose billions of pesos in the sale of PEA reclaimed lands to AMARI
2. PEA should disclose terms of renegotiation of JVA on the right of people to information on
matters of public concern
3. Sale to AMARI of lands of public domain violates the prohibition on the sale of alienable
lands to private corporations
In 1999, PEA and AMARI signed the Amended and JVA and President Estrada approved it.
Due to the approval of the Amended JVA, petitioner now prays that on "constitutional and
statutory grounds the renegotiated contract be declared null and void."
Issues/Held:
1. WON the reliefs prayed for are moot and academic because of subsequent events NO
2. WON the petition should be dismissed for failing to observe the principle of g overning the
hierarchy of courts NO
3. WON the petition should be dismissed for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies
NO
4. WON petitioner has locus standi YES
5. W ON the constitutional right to information includes information on on-going
negotiations before a final agreement NO
6. WON the stipulations in the amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of certain lands,
reclaimed and still to be reclaimed violate Sec. 3 Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution YES
7. WON the Court has jurisdiction over the issue whether the Amended JVA is grossly
disadvantageous to the g overnment No need to decide
Ratio:
1. If the Amended JVA indeed violates the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to enjoin its
implementation, and if already implemented, to annul the effects of such unconstitutional
contract. The Amended JVA is not an ordinary commercial contract but one that seeks to
transfer title and ownership to 367.5 hectares of reclaimed lands and submerged areas of
Manila Bay to a single private corporation. It now becomes more compelling for the Court
to resolve the issue to insure the g overnment itself does not violate a provision of the
Constitution intended to safeguard the national patrimony. Further, there is a need to
resolve immediately the constitutional issue because of the possible transfer at any time
by PEA to AMARI of title and ownership to portions of the reclaimed lands.
2.

Hierarchy of courts only apply to factual issues. The case raises constitutional issues and
are therefore of importance to the public. The petition for mandamus is also within the
jurisdiction of the Court.

3.

The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue is a
constitutional question. The transfer of lands from PEA to AMARI is viewed under the
constitutional prohibition on the transfer of public domain to private corporations.
Furthermore, the negotiations on the PEA-AMARI transfer were not through public
bidding, so PEA has a legal duty to disclose to the public the terms and conditions for the
sale of its lands.

4.

5.

Petitioner has standing since two constitutional rights are being legally demanded and
enforced: right of citizens to information on matters of public concern, and the
constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of
the public domain, which are matter of transcendental importance to a taxpayer and a
citizen, thus petitioner is a party in interest.
The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going negotiations
before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite propositions by
the g overnment and should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information,
military and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public
order.
Before the consummation of the contract, PEA must, on its own and without demand from
anyone, disclose to the public matters relating to the disposition of its property because
the Government Auditing Code requires public bidding. If PEA fails to make this
disclosure, any citizen can demand from PEA this information at any time during the
bidding process.
Contrary to AMARI's contention, the commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission understood that the right to information "contemplates inclusion of
negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction." Certainly, a consummated
contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to information. Otherwise, the
people can never exercise the right if no contract is consummated, and if one is
consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its defects.

The right covers three categories of information, which are "matters of public concern," namely:

official records

documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and decisions

government research data used in formulating policies

6.

Amended JVA violates Sec. 2 and 3 of Art. 12 of the Constitution.

The 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now
covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public
domain. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or
transfer ownership of these lands to private corporations.
The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural
resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands
open to disposition and declared no longer needed for public service. The
government can make such classification and declaration only after PEA has
reclaimed these submerged areas. Only then can these lands q ualify as
agricultural lands of the public domain, which are the only natural resources the
government can alienate. In their present state, the 592.15 hectares of submerged
areas are inalienable and outside the commerce of man.
Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation,
ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for
being contrary to the constitutional prohibition that disallows private corporations
from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
Since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156
hectares of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being
contrary to the Constitution, which prohibits the alienation of natural resources
other than agricultural lands of the public domain. PEA may reclaim these
submerged areas. Thereafter, the g overnment can classify the reclaimed lands as
alienable or disposable, and further declare them no longer needed for public
service. Still, the transfer of such reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain to
AMARI will be unconstitutional because private corporations are prohibited from
acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.

7. Considering that the Amended JVA is null and void ab initio, there is no necessity to
rule on this last issue. Besides, the Court is not a trier of facts, and this last issue involves
a determination of factual matters.
Decision:
Petition granted. PEA and AMARI are permanently enjoined from implementing the Amended
JVA which is hereby declared null and void ab initio.
Notes:
Art. 2 Sec. 28
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy
of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
Art. 3 Sec. 7
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access
to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to g overnment research data used as basis for policy development, shall
be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Art. 12 Sec. 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.
Art. 12 Sec. 3
Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and
national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law
according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall
be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such
alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five
years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares
in area...
IDEALS v. PSALM
G.R. No. 192088
Date of Promulgation: October 9, 2012
Ponente: Villarama, J.
Petition: certiorari and prohibition
Petitioners:
INITIATIVES FOR DIALOGUE AND EMPOWERMENT THROUGH ALTERNATIVE LEGAL
SERVICES, INC. (IDEALS, INC.), represented by its Executive Director, Mr. Edgardo Ligon,
and FREEDOM FROM DEBT COALITION (FDC), represented by its Vice President Rebecca
L. Malay, AKBAYAN CITIZEN'S ACTION PARTY, represented by its Chair Emeritus Loretta
Anne P. Rosales, ALLIANCE OF PROGRESSIVE LABOR, represented by its Chairperson,
Daniel L. Edralin, REP. WALDEN BELLO, in his capacity as duly-elected Member of the House
of Representatives
Respondents:
POW ER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (PSALM),
represented by its Acting President and Chief Executive Officer Atty. Ma. Luz L. Caminero,
METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS), represented by its
Administrator Atty. Diosdado M. Allado, NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION (NIA),
represented by its Administrator Carlos S. Salazar, KOREA WATER RESOURCES
CORPORATION, represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Kim Kuen-Ho and/or Attorneys-infact, Atty. Anna Bianca L. Torres and Atty. Luther D. Ramos, FIRST GEN NORTHERN

ENERGY CORP., represented by its President, Mr. Federico R. Lopez, SAN MIGUEL CORP.,
represented by its President, Mr. Ramon S. Ang, SNABOITIZ POWER-PANGASINAN INC.,
represented by its President, Mr. Antonio R. Moraza, TRANS-ASIA OIL AND ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, represented by its President and CEO, Mr. Francisco L.
Viray, and DMCI POWER CORP., represented by its President, Mr. Nestor Dadivas
Facts:
Respondent PSALM is a government-owned and controlled corporation created by virtue of
Republic Act No. 9136,1 otherwise known as the "Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001"
(EPIRA).
Sometime in August 2005, PSALM commenced the privatization of the 246-megawatt (MW)
AHEPP located in San Lorenzo, Norzagaray, Bulacan. AHEPPs main units built in 1967 and
1968, and 5 auxiliary units, form part of the Angat Complex which includes the Angat Dam,
Angat Reservoir and the outlying watershed area.
On May 5, 2010, and after a post-bid evaluation, PSALMs Board of Directors approved and
confirmed the issuance of a Notice of Award to the highest bidder, K-Water (a Korean
corporation)
Issues/Held:
1. WON
2. WON
3. WON
4. WON

petition is moot; - NO
it violates the right to information; - YES
it is a violation of Sec. 2, Art. XII of the Constitution; - YES
it is a violation of the Water Code provisions on the g rant of water rights; and

Ratio:
1. PSALMs contention that the present petition had already been mooted by the issuance
of the Notice of Award to K-Water is misplaced. PSALMs contention that the present
petition had already been mooted by the issuance of the Notice of Award to K-Water
is misplaced.
1. The peoples constitutional right to information is intertwined with the g overnments
constitutional duty. Information, however, on on-going evaluation or review of bids or
proposals being undertaken by the bidding or review committee is not immediately
accessible under the right to information. While the evaluation or review is still ongoing, there are no "official acts, transactions, or decisions" on the bids or proposals.
However, once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a
"definite proposition" on the part of the government. From this moment, the publics
right to information attaches, and any citizen can access all the non-proprietary
information leading to such definite proposition. duty of full public disclosure of all
transactions involving public interest.28 Section 28,
2. Consequently, this relief must be granted to petitioners by directing PSALM to allow
petitioners access to the papers and documents relating to the company profile and
legal capacity of the winning bidder.
1. Petitioners further assert that the terms of the sale of AHEPP allowing the buyer the
operation and management of the Non-Power Components, constitutes a
relinquishment of government control over the Angat Dam, in violation of Art. XII,
Sec. 2 of the Constitution.
Decision:
WHEREFORE, the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief/s
is PARTLY GRANTED.
1) The bidding conducted and the Notice of Award issued by PSALM in favor of the winning
bidder, KOREA WATER RESOURCES CORPORATION (K-WATER), are declared VALID and
LEGAL;
2) PSALM is directed to FURNISH the petitioners with copies of all documents and records in
its files pertaining to K-Water;

1. Foreign ownership of a hydropower facility is not prohibited under existing laws.

2. The crucial issue at hand is the determination of whether the utilization of water by the power
plant to be owned and operated by a foreign-owned corporation (SRPC) will violate the
provisions of the Water Code. Under the Water Code concept of appropriation, a foreign
company may not be said to be "appropriating" our natural resources