Cruz vs Secretary of DENR
However, the
Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA;
Regalian Doctrine
GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000
FACTS:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition
and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality
of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the
Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing
rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail 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.
ISSUE:
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?
HELD:
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution.
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 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.
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.
IPRA Law vis a vis RegalianDoctrine
Cruz, a noted constitutionalist, assailed the validity of the RA8371 or
the Indigenous People’s Rights Act on the ground that the law 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 regalia doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of
the Constitution. The IPRA law basically enumerates the rights of the
indigenous peoples over ancestral domains which may include natural
resources. Cruz et al 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) of said law violate the rights of private landowners. ISSUE:
Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional. HELD: The SC
deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation they voted and
reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again and the same result
transpired. Since there was no majority vote, Cruz’s petition was
dismissed and the IPRA law was sustained. Hence, ancestral domains
may include natural resources – somehow against the regalia doctrine