CASE

CRUZ vs, SECRETARY OF DENR

GR No. | Date

135385 | December 06, 2000

Ponente

PER CURIAM

Doctrine

Facts of the Case

 Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa assail the constitutionality as citizens and taxpayers, certain
provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA Law) and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations (Implementing Rules). The ground of their petition is the alleged
unlawful deprivation by the said law 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.

 Respondents Chairperson and Commissioners of the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP), the
government agency under the IPRA designated to implement its provisions, filed their Comment to the
Petition, defending the constitutionality of IPRA and pray that petition dismissed for lack of merit.

 Solicitor General (representing Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
and of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) consolidated a Comment that IPRA is partly
unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over natural resources to indigenous people and pray
that the petition be granted in part.

 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 people (Flavier, et al.),
filed their Motion for Leave to Intervene. They join the NCIP in defending the constitutionality of IPRA and
praying for the dismissal of the petition.

MTC/RTC Ruling

CA Ruling

Issue/s:
Whether or not the following provisions of the IPRA and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) are
unconstitutional for 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.

Provisions of IPRA law are as follows:

1, Section 3(a) which defines the extent and coverage of ancestral domains, and Section 3(b) which, in turn, defines
ancestral lands;

2. Section 5, in relation to section 3(a), which provides that ancestral domains including inalienable public lands,
bodies of water, mineral and other resources found within ancestral domains are private but community property of the
indigenous peoples;

3. Section 6 in relation to Section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the composition of ancestral domains and ancestral
lands;

4. Section 7 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral domains;

5. Section 8 which recognizes and enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over the ancestral lands;

6. Section 57 which provides for priority rights of the indigenous peoples in the harvesting, extraction,
development or exploration of minerals and other natural resources within the areas claimed to be their ancestral
domains, and the right to enter into agreements with nonindigenous peoples for the development and utilization of
natural resources therein for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years; and

7. Section 58 which gives the indigenous peoples the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve the
ancestral domains and portions thereof which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves, wildlife
sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover or reforestation.
SC Ruling:
After due deliberation on the petition, 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. Pursuant to Rule 56,
Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED.

The End…

But….

Wait....

This case’s integral parts are the separate opinions of Justices Puno, Kapunan, and Panganiban. Hence, the following:

I.) Justice Puno – NO.

 Ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. They are
private and belong to the ICCs/IPs. The classification of lands in the public domain under
Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution does not include ancestral lands nor ancestral domains.
The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands may be acquired in two
modes: (1) by native title over both ancestral lands and domains; or (2) by torrens title under the
Public Land Act and the Land Registration Act with respect to ancestral lands only. Both modes
presume or recognize the land as private and not public.

 The right to ownership to ancestral domain under Section 7(a) involves “lands, bodies of water
traditionally and occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds,
and all improvements made by them at any time within the domains”, not “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” enumerated in Section 2, Article
XII of the Constitution. Ownership therefore of natural resources remain with the State.
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.

 Small-scale utilization of resources in Section 7 (b) is also allowed under paragraph 3, Section
2, Article XII of the Constitution.

 Large-scale utilization of natural resources in Section 57 of RA 8371 is allowed under

paragraphs 1 and 4, Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution since only “priority rights” (which
does not necessarily mean ownership rights) are given to ICCs/IPs.

 Indigenous rights came as a result of both human rights and environmental protection, and have
become a part of today’s priorities for the international agenda.

 However, including “natural resources”, Section 1, Part II, Rule III of the Implementing Rules
goes beyond Section 7 (a) and therefore unconstitutional.

II.) Justice Kapunan – NO.

 Said provisions affirming the ownership by indigenous people of their ancestral lands
and domains by virtue of native title (definition: lands held in private ownership since
time immemorial) do not diminish the State’s ownership of lands within the public
domain, because said ancestral lands and domains are considered as private land, and
never to have been part of the public domain (doctrine laid down in Cariño vs. Insular
Government)

 Section 3 (a) serves only as a yardstick which points out what properties are within the
ancestral domains. It does not confer or recognize any right of ownership over the
natural resources to the ICCs/IPs. Its purpose is definitional and not declarative of a
right or a title.

 Section 57 only grants “priority rights” to ICCs/IPs in the utilization of natural

resources and not absolute ownership. The State retains full control over the
exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources through the imposition of
requirements and conditions for the utilization of natural resources under existing laws,
such as the Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991 and the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

III.) Justice Panganiban – YES.

 Section 3 (a) (whose definition of ancestral domain encompasses natural resources

found therein), and 3 (b) (which defines ancestral lands as those possessed by ICCs/IPs
since time immemorial) contravene Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, which
declares that the State owns all lands of the public domain, minerals, and natural
resources – none of which, except agricultural lands, can be alienated. In addition, mere
possession or utilization of land, does not automatically convert them into private
properties.

 IPRA Law does not specify limits to ancestral lands and domains.

 IPRA Law relinquishes the State’s power of full control of natural resources in favor of
ICCs/IPs who may exercise these rights without any limit. Also, they are also given the
right to negotiate directly the terms and conditions for the exploration of natural
resources under Section 7 (b), a right vested by the Constitution only to the State.
Ancestral domains - all areas belonging to ICCs/IPs held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by
ICCs/IPs by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial,
continuously until the present, except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit,
stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings with government and/or private
individuals or corporations. Ancestral domains comprise lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources
therein and includes ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned
whether alienable or not, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural
resources.

Ancestral lands - are lands held by the ICCs/IPs under the same conditions as ancestral domains except that these
are limited to lands and that these lands are not merely occupied and possessed but are also utilized by the ICCs/IPs
under claims of individual or traditional group ownership. These lands include but are not limited to residential lots,
rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.

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. These
groups of people have actually occupied, possessed and utilized their territories under claim of ownership since time
immemorial. They share common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or,
they, by their resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and
cultures, became historically differentiated from the Filipino majority. ICCs/IPs also include descendants of
ICCs/IPs who inhabited the country at the time of conquest or colonization, who retain some or all of their own
social, economic, cultural and political institutions but who may have been displaced from their traditional territories
or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains.

Regalian Doctrine - or jura regalia is a Western legal concept that was first introduced by the Spaniards into the
country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas. It defines the capacity of the State to own or acquire
property which is within the state’s power of dominium.