#1

Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

DOCTRINE: The 1987 Constitution reaffirmed the Regalian doctrine in Section 2 of Article XII on "National
Economy and Patrimony," to wit:
"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. 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.

[Guys, sorry medyo mahaba talaga yung case]

FACTS:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens
and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (R.A. 8371),
otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations (Implementing Rules) on the ground that they amounted 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 as embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

Petitoner’s Contention
1. Petitioners prayed that Sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 52[I], 57, 58, 59, 63, 65 and 66 and other related
provisions of R.A. 8371 be declared unconstitutional and invalid for violating the Constitution;
2. 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 R.A. 8371
violated the rights of private landowners.;
3. The provisions of the IPRA which defined the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and made
customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral
lands were unconstitutional as these violated the due process clause of the Constitution.
4. Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, which provided
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." infringed
upon the President’s power of control over executive departments under Section 17, Article VII of
the Constitution.

Respondent’s Rebuttal
Respondents Chairperson and Commissioners of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP), the government agency created under the IPRA to implement its provisions, filed on October 13,
1998 their Comment to the Petition, in which they defended the constitutionality of the IPRA and prayed
that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit. On October 19, 1998, respondents Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Secretary of the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) filed through the Solicitor General a consolidated Comment. The Solicitor General was
of the view that the IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the ground that it granted ownership over natural
resources to indigenous peoples and prayed that the petition be granted in part. On November 10, 1998, 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), filed their Motion for Leave to Intervene and also joined the NCIP in
defending the constitutionality of IPRA and in praying for the dismissal of the petition. On March 22, 1999,
the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) likewise filed a Motion to Intervene and prayed for the dismissal of
the petition by contending 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. On March 23, 1999, another group, composed of the Ikalahan Indigenous People and
the Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, Inc. (Haribon, et al.), also filed a motion
to Intervene which asserted that IPRA was consistent with the Constitution and prayed that the petition for
prohibition and mandamus be dismissed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the aforementioned provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional.

HELD:
No. 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 was DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

[Guys, this is really how short the conclusion was as written (like, no explanation at all). However, Justice
Puno, in his separate opinion, elaborately explained everything (from history to the present case) and I’ll
try to include some salient points he made in connection with Regalian doctrine but I feel like we all have
to read the whole separate opinion for us to deeply understand how the Regalian doctrine developed
throughout history and how the IPRA really works.]

SEPARATE OPINION SALIENT POINTS:

1. Sections 7 (a), 7 (b) and 57 of the IPRA Do Not Violate the Regalian Doctrine Enshrined in Section
2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

"Sec. 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains.- The rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their
ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights include:
 a) Right of Ownership.- 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;

b) Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources.- Subject to Section 56 hereof, the right to
develop, control and use lands and territories traditionally occupied, owned, or used; to manage
and conserve natural resources within the territories and uphold the responsibilities for future
generations; to benefit and share the profits from allocation and utilization of the natural resources
found therein; 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; the right to an informed and
intelligent participation in the formulation and implementation of any project, government or
private, that will affect or impact upon the ancestral domains and to receive just and fair
compensation for any damages which they may sustain as a result of the project; and the right to
effective measures by the government to prevent any interference with, alienation and
encroachment upon these rights;"

c) Right to Stay in the Territories.- The right to stay in the territory and not to be removed
therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free and prior informed consent, nor
through any means other than eminent domain. x x x;

d) Right in Case of Displacement.- In case displacement occurs as a result of natural catastrophes,

e) Right to Regulate the Entry of Migrants.- Right to regulate the entry of migrant settlers and
organizations into their domains;

f) Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water.-For this purpose, the ICCs/IPs shall have access to
integrated systems for the management of their inland waters and air space;

g) Right to Claim Parts of Reservations.- The right to claim parts of the ancestral domains which
have been reserved for various purposes, except those reserved and intended for common and
public welfare and service;

h) Right to Resolve Conflict.- Right to resolve land conflicts in accordance with customary laws of
the area where the land is located, and only in default thereof shall the complaints be submitted to
amicable settlement and to the Courts of Justice whenever necessary."

"Sec. 8. Rights to Ancestral Lands.- The right of ownership and possession of the ICCs/IPs to their
ancestral lands shall be recognized and protected.

a) Right to transfer land/property.- Such right shall include the right to transfer land or property
rights to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs, subject to customary laws and traditions of the
community concerned.

b) Right to Redemption.- In cases where it is shown that the transfer of land/property rights by
virtue of any agreement or devise, to a non-member of the concerned ICCs/IPs is tainted by the
 vitiated consent of the ICCs/IPs, or is transferred for an unconscionable consideration or price, the
transferor ICC/IP shall have the right to redeem the same within a period not exceeding fifteen (15)
years from the date of transfer."

x x x x

Section 7 (a) defines the Indigenous People and Indigenous Cultural Communities (IP and ICC)’s right of
ownership over their ancestral domains which covers (a) lands, (b) bodies of water traditionally and actually
occupied by the ICCs/IPs, (c) sacred places, (d) traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and (e) all
improvements made by them at any time within the domains. The right of ownership includes the following
rights: (1) the right to develop lands and natural resources; (b) the right to stay in the territories; (c) the right
to resettlement in case of displacement; (d) the right to regulate the entry of migrants; (e) the right to safe
and clean air and water; (f) the right to claim parts of the ancestral domains as reservations; and (g) the right
to resolve conflict in accordance with customary laws. On the other hand, Section 8 governs their rights to
ancestral lands. Unlike ownership over the ancestral domains, Section 8 gives the ICCs/IPs also the right to
transfer the land or property rights to members of the same ICCs/IPs or non-members thereof. This is in
keeping with the option given to ICCs/IPs to secure a torrens title over the ancestral lands, but not to
domains.

2. The Right of ICCs/IPs to Develop Lands and Natural Resources Within the Ancestral Domains Does
Not Deprive the State of Ownership Over the Natural Resources and Control and Supervision in
their Development and Exploitation.

The Regalian doctrine on the ownership, management and utilization of natural resources is declared
in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, viz:

"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. 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, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial
use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and
exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as
well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays,
and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and
other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the state
shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
 The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision,
within thirty days from its execution."
x x x x
In accordance with this provision, all lands of the public domain and all natural resources- 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. Thus, the State is accorded
with primary power and has full control and supervision in the exploration, development, utilization of
these natural resources. 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) as:
"Sec. 7. a) Right of ownership- 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;"

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, petroleum and 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. Thus, the non-inclusion of
ownership by the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in Section 7(a) complies with the Regalian doctrine.

3. Section 1, Part II, Rule III of the Implementing Rules Goes Beyond the Parameters of Sec. 7 (a) of
the IPRA And is Unconstitutional.

The Rules Implementing the IPRA in Section 1, Part II, Rule III reads:
“Section 1. Rights of Ownership. ICCs/IPs have rights of ownership over lands, waters, and natural
resources and all improvements made by them at any time within the ancestral domains/ lands. These rights
shall include, but not limited to, the right over the fruits, the right to possess, the right to use, right to
consume, right to exclude and right to recover ownership, and the rights or interests over land and natural
resources. The right to recover shall be particularly applied to lands lost through fraud or any form or vitiated
consent or transferred for an unconscionable price."

According to Justice Puno, the constitutionality of Section 1, Part II, Rule III of the Implementing Rules
was not specifically and categorically challenged by petitioners. Petitioners actually assail the
constitutionality of the Implementing Rules in general. Nevertheless, to avoid any confusion in the
implementation of the law, it is necessary to declare that the inclusion of "natural resources" in Section 1,
Part II, Rule III of the Implementing Rules goes beyond the parameters of Section 7 (b) of the law and
is contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
 4. The Small-Scale Utilization of Natural Resources In Sec. 7 (b) of the IPRA Is Allowed Under
Paragraph 3, Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution.

Please refer to bullet no. 1 ( Sec. 7(b)) re the rights to develop lands and natural resources. According to
Justice Puno, 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." This means that the ICCs/Ips’ rights over the natural resources take only the form of
management or stewardship. It must be noted that the right to negotiate the terms and conditions over
the natural resources covers only their exploration which must be for the purpose of ensuring ecological
and environmental protection of, and conservation measures in the ancestral domain. It does not extend
to the exploitation and development of natural resources.

The limited rights of "management and use" in Section 7 (b) must be taken to contemplate small-scale
utilization of natural resources as distinguished from large-scale. Small-scale utilization of natural
resources is expressly allowed in the third paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution "in
recognition of the plight of forest dwellers, gold panners, marginal fishermen and others similarly situated
who exploit our natural resources for their daily sustenance and survival." Section 7 (b) also expressly
mandates the ICCs/IPs to manage and conserve these resources and ensure environmental and ecological
protection within the domains, which duties, by their very nature, necessarily reject utilization in a large-
scale.

5. The Large-Scale Utilization of Natural Resources In Section 57 of the IPRA Is Allowed Under
Paragraphs 1 and 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

"Sec. 57 of the IPRA. Natural Resources within Ancestral Domains.- The ICCs/IPs shall have priority rights in
the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral
domains. A non-member of the ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and
utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years renewable for not
more than twenty-five (25) years: Provided, That a formal and written agreement is entered into with the
ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, pursuant to its own decision-making process, has agreed to allow
such operation: Provided finally, That the NCIP may exercise visitorial powers and take appropriate action
to safeguard the rights of the ICCs/IPs under the same contract."
x x x x

According to Justice Puno, Section 57 of the IPRA does not give the ICCs/IPs the right to "manage
and conserve" the natural resources. Instead, the law only grants the ICCs/IPs "priority rights" in the
development or exploitation thereof. Priority means giving preference. Having priority rights over the
natural resources does not necessarily mean ownership rights. The grant of priority rights implies that
there is a superior entity that owns these resources and this entity has the power to grant preferential
rights over the resources to whosoever itself chooses. This does not repudiate the Regalian doctrine but
rather affirm the said doctrine that all natural resources found within the ancestral domains belong to the
State. 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.