Scribd
Upload
414 views5 pages

IPRA Class Personal Notes

The document summarizes key provisions of the Indigenous People's Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, which recognizes and protects the rights of indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples in the Philippines. It defines important terms and outlines the rights of indigenous peoples to ancestral domains, including rights to ownership, development of lands and natural resources, residence, and regulation of entry. It also establishes the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples and discusses jurisdiction and enforcement of indigenous peoples' rights under IPRA.

Uploaded by

avocado books
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
414 views5 pages

IPRA Class Personal Notes

The document summarizes key provisions of the Indigenous People's Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, which recognizes and protects the rights of indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples in the Philippines. It defines important terms and outlines the rights of indigenous peoples to ancestral domains, including rights to ownership, development of lands and natural resources, residence, and regulation of entry. It also establishes the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples and discusses jurisdiction and enforcement of indigenous peoples' rights under IPRA.

Uploaded by

avocado books
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

CHAPTER 6 – IPRA

A. Governing Law
a. (Full Title) AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, CREATING A NATIONAL
COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

b. (Section 1) The Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (RA 8371)


c. (Date of Effectivity) October 29, 1997

B. Declaration of State Policies (Section 2)


a. The State shall recognize and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs within the framework of
national unity and development;
b. The State shall protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains to ensure their
economic, social and cultural well being and shall recognize the applicability of
customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and
extent of ancestral domain;
c. The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of ICCs/IPs to preserve and
develop their cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the
formulation of national laws and policies;
d. The State shall guarantee that members of the ICCs/IPs regardless of sex, shall equally
enjoy the full measure of human rights and freedoms without distinction or
discrimination;
e. The State shall take measures, with the participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned, to
protect their rights and guarantee respect for their cultural integrity, and to ensure that
members of the ICCs/IPs benefit on an equal footing from the rights and opportunities
which national laws and regulations grant to other members of the population; and
f. The State recognizes its obligations to respond to the strong expression of the ICCs/IPs
for cultural integrity by assuring maximum ICC/IP participation in the direction of
education, health, as well as other services of ICCs/IPs, in order to render such services
more responsive to the needs and desires of these communities.

C. Definition of Terms (Sec. 3)


a. Ancestral Domains
b. Ancestral Lands
c. Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
d. Certificate of Ancestral Lands Title
e. Communal Claims
f. Customary Laws
g. Free and Prior Informed Consent
h. Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples
i. Indigenous Political Structures
j. Indigenous Political Claims
k. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
l. Native Title
m. Nongovernment Organization
n. People’s Organization
o. Sustainable Traditional Resource Rights
p. Time Immemorial
D. Rights to Ancestral Domain (Ch.3 Secs. 4-12)
a. Section 7
i. Right to Ownership
ii. Right to Develop Lands and Natural Resources
iii. Right to Stay in the Territories
iv. Right in Case of Displacement
v. Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants
vi. Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water
vii. Right to Claim Parts of Reservations
viii. Right to Resolve Conflict
E. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (h. 7; Secs 38-50)
F. Jurisdiction and Procedures for Enforcement of Rights
G. Punishable Acts – Sec. 72
a. Carino vs. Insular Government
i. Ruling is with Respect to Spanish Law where prescription could run against the
crown
ii. Torrens Law is not a means of gaining property but establishing what is already
owned
iii.
b. Cruz vs. Sec. of Environment
04/11/20 NAT RES NOTES

MTS 67

MTG 71

Justice Abad made the MCQ portion in BAR

He defended it for the ff. reasons:

1. Luck is only 25% (principle of luck)


2. He should know not only the right answer but that there are three wrong answers
3. It shows the level of preparedness
4. It encloses the topic to the module or subject matter compared to essay

There might be True or False

Midterms Question Discussion:

 In our case with China territorial dispute: we may go thru the International Tribunal Law of the
Sea (ITLoS), Arbitral Tribunal and Special Arbitrary Tribunal
 In internal waters, PH has full sovereignty and foreign vessels have no right of innocent passage
 Carino vs. Insular Government dispositive portion
 Tano vs. Socrates Local Autonomy
 People vs. Maceren provides that in Administrative law, you cannot prohibit an act that is not
prohibited by law. Electro fishing was not prohibited and as such cannot be punishable. As such,
the issuance is void.
 Shell vs. Jalos arguments were overturned by the Supreme Court
 Timber License is not a contract but a privilege
 Sec. of DENR vs. Yap, the Bureau of Fisheries may only recommend reclassification but only a
Presidential Prerogative may reclassify land
 Bureau of Customs has the primary jurisdiction to enforce of the importation ban under Sec. 36,
par. 1 of the Revised Forestry Code. Take note of the term “importation”
 Note: Always try to eliminate from the choices before finalizing your answer
 National Water Resources Board takes cognizance of issues concerning appropriation,
utilization, and control of waters. (Exclusive original jurisdiction of NWRC)
 Buffer Zone protects the protected areas
 Total no. of protected areas in E-NIPAS Act is 107
 Environmental Guarantee Fund is for general rehabilitation
 IPAF is only for watersheds and aquifers
 PAMB is supervisory but BMB of DENR has actual control over NIPAS
ESSAY Answers:

 Mustang Lumber vs. CA provides that lumber is a processed log or timber.


 People vs. Que provides that there are two different offenses punished, both possession and the
cutting of lumber.
 In keeping with the presumption of State ownership, DENR Sec. vs. Yap provides that there must
be a positive act coming from the executive prerogative of the department.
 The Filipino First Policy is a self-executing policy. A self-executing provision is complete in itself
and the only thing left is to implement it. This is according to Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS.
o Pamatong vs. COC shows a non self-executing provision
 Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment, it was cited in the separate opinion of Justice Puno that there
is no contravention between the constitution and IPRA. Concept of Native Title in Carino vs.
Insular Government.
 Oposa vs. Factoran. The SC upheld the legal standing of the minors in upholding the
constitutional right and responsibility towards protecting our resources and the rights of the
future generations.
 Momongan vs. Omipon. The RPC and Administrative penalty are different.
 Henares vs. LTFRB. You cannot compel by mandamus the administrative duty without the law.
But if there is a mandate, then the government may be compelled.
 The Water Code provides that all waters belong to the State but for one’s own domestic and
personal use, one may use water as a surface owner of private land also provided that if
registration be required, it must be complied with.
 Tanay Case and Metro Iloilo Case
o Tanay involves appropriation, utilization and ownership of water
o Exclusive jurisdiction of NWRC
o Metro Iloilo case provides SC upheld the RTC jurisdiction
 Bonus question (12) two from MCQ, ten from essay
 Additional Notes
o Now we know how to answer the bara exams
o Do not be careless with the exam
o Process of elimination in mcq

IPRA Law Brief Discussion

 It seems they are not yet capable of handling their own property
 Clark, Pampanga
 P300M was allotted to an IP community
 Due to the money issue, there came a challenge from the tribal groups on where the money
should be released
 There were law suits
 Certification was then required from the tribal groups
 It reached the President
 A meeting was done with P. Duterte
 Accdg. to him, he does not want to release the budget to the leaders due to one leader buying a
Fortuner
 A plan was required by the President to release the budget even if the law instructs it be
released to the leaders
 The issue: Who will prepare the development plan? NCIP or another technical govt hopefully
 Food for thought: The IPs do not want more and are contented with what they have. Who are
we to judge them for their aspirations?

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy