4/15/2016

CruzvsSec.ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources:135385:December6,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc

ENBANC

[G.R.No.135385.December6,2000]

ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA, petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, SECRETARY OF
BUDGETAND MANAGEMENT and CHAIRMAN and COMMISSIONERS
OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES,
respondents.
HON. JUAN M .FLAVIER, HON. PONCIANO BENNAGEN, BAYANI
ASCARRAGA, EDTAMI MANSAYANGAN, BASILIO WANDAG, EVELYN
DUNUAN,YAOMTUGAS,ALFREMOCARPIANO,LIBERATOA.GABIN,
MATERNIDAD M. COLAS, NARCISA M. DALUPINES, BAI KIRAM
CONNIE SATURNO, BAE MLOMOBEATRIZ T. ABASALA, DATU
BALITUNGTUNGANTONIO D. LUMANDONG, DATU MANTUMUKAW
TEOFISTO SABASALES, DATU EDUAARDO BANDA, DATU JOEL
UNAD, DATU RAMON BAYAAN, TIMUAY JOSE ANOY, TIMUAY
MACARIO D. SALACAO, TIMUAY EDWIN B. ENDING, DATU
SAHAMPONG MALANAW VI, DATU BEN PENDAO CABIGON, BAI
NANAPNAYLIZA SAWAY, BAY INAY DAYAMELINDA S. REYMUNDO,
BAI TINANGHAGA HELINITA T. PANGAN, DATU MAKAPUKAW
ADOLINO L. SAWAY, DATU MAUDAYAWCRISPEN SAWAY, VICKY
MAKAY, LOURDES D. AMOS, GILBERT P. HOGGANG, TERESA
GASPAR, MANUEL S. ONALAN, MIA GRACE L. GIRON, ROSEMARIE
G. PE, BENITO CARINO, JOSEPH JUDE CARANTES, LYNETTE
CARANTESVIVAL, LANGLEY SEGUNDO, SATUR S. BUGNAY,
CARLING DOMULOT, ANDRES MENDIOGRIN, LEOPOLDO ABUGAN,
VIRGILIO CAYETANO, CONCHITA G. DESCAGA, LEVY ESTEVES,
ODETTE G. ESTEVEZ, RODOLFO C. AGUILAR, MAURO VALONES,
PEPEH.ATONG,OFELIAT.DAVI,PERFECTOB.GUINOSAO,WALTER
N.TIMOL,MANUELT.SELEN,OSCARDALUNHAY,RICOO.SULATAN,
RAFFY MALINDA, ALFREDO ABILLANOS, JESSIE ANDILAB,
MIRLANDO H. MANGKULINTAS, SAMIE SATURNO, ROMEO A.
LINDAHAY, ROEL S. MANSANGCAGAN, PAQUITO S. LIESES, FILIPE
G. SAWAY, HERMINIA S. SAWAY, JULIUS S. SAWAY, LEONARDA
SAWAY, JIMMY UGYUB, SALVADOR TIONGSON, VENANCIO APANG,
MADION MALID, SUKIM MALID, NENENG MALID, MANGKATADONG
AUGUSTODIANO,JOSEPHINEM.ALBESO,MORENOMALID,MARIO
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385.htm

1/5

4/15/2016

CruzvsSec.ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources:135385:December6,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc

MANGCAL,FELAYDIAMILING,SALOMEP.SARZA,FELIPEP.BAGON,
SAMMYSALNUNGAN,ANTONIOD.EMBA,NORMAMAPANSAGONOS,
ROMEO SALIGA, SR., JERSON P. GERADA, RENATO T. BAGON, JR.,
SARINGMASALONG,SOLEDADM.GERARDA,ELIZABETHL.MENDI,
MORANTE S. TIWAN, DANILO M. MALUDAO, MINORS MARICEL
MALID, represented by her father CORNELIO MALID, MARCELINO M.
LADRA, represented by her father MONICO D. LADRA, JENNYLYN
MALID, represented by her father TONY MALID, ARIEL M.
EVANGELISTA, represented by her mother LINAY BALBUENA,
EDWARDM.EMUY,SR.,SUSANBOLANIO,OND,PULABATOBLAAN
TRIBAL FARMERSASSOCIATION, INTERPEOPLES EXCHANGE, INC.
andGREENFORUMWESTERNVISAYAS,intervenors.
COMMISSIONONHUMANRIGHTS,intervenor.
IKALAHAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLE and HARIBON FOUNDATION FOR THE
CONSERVATIONOFNATURALRESOURCES,INC.,intervenor.
RESOLUTION
PERCURIAM:

PetitionersIsaganiCruzandCesarEuropabroughtthissuitforprohibitionandmandamus
as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of RepublicAct
No.8371(R.A.8371),otherwiseknownastheIndigenousPeoplesRightsActof1997(IPRA),
anditsImplementingRulesandRegulations(ImplementingRules).
InitsresolutionofSeptember29,1998,theCourtrequiredrespondentstocomment.[1]In
compliance, respondents Chairperson and Commissioners of the National Commission on
IndigenousPeoples(NCIP),thegovernmentagencycreatedundertheIPRAtoimplementits
provisions,filedonOctober13,1998theirCommenttothePetition,inwhichtheydefendthe
constitutionalityoftheIPRAandpraythatthepetitionbedismissedforlackofmerit.
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)filedthroughtheSolicitorGeneralaconsolidatedComment.TheSolicitorGeneralisof
the view that the IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership over
naturalresourcestoindigenouspeoplesandpraysthatthepetitionbegrantedinpart.
OnNovember10,1998,agroupofintervenors,composedofSen.JuanFlavier,oneofthe
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. They join the NCIP in defending the
constitutionalityofIPRAandprayingforthedismissalofthepetition.
On March 22, 1999, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) likewise filed a Motion to
Interveneand/ortoAppearasAmicusCuriae. TheCHRassertsthatIPRAisanexpressionof
theprincipleofparenspatriaeandthattheStatehastheresponsibilitytoprotectandguarantee
therightsofthosewhoareataseriousdisadvantagelikeindigenouspeoples.Forthisreasonit
praysthatthepetitionbedismissed.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385.htm

2/5

4/15/2016

CruzvsSec.ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources:135385:December6,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc

OnMarch23,1999,anothergroup,composedoftheIkalahanIndigenousPeopleandthe
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, Inc. (Haribon, et al.), filed a
motion to Intervene with attached CommentinIntervention. They agree with the NCIP and
Flavier, et al. that IPRA is consistent with the Constitution and pray that the petition for
prohibitionandmandamusbedismissed.
Themotionsforinterventionoftheaforesaidgroupsandorganizationsweregranted.
OralargumentswereheardonApril13,1999.Thereafter,thepartiesandintervenorsfiled
their respective memoranda in which they reiterate the arguments adduced in their earlier
pleadingsandduringthehearing.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following provisions of the IPRA and its
Implementing Rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States
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:
(1)Section3(a)whichdefinestheextentandcoverageofancestraldomains,andSection3(b)
which,inturn,definesancestrallands
(2) Section 5, in relation to section 3(a), which provides that ancestral domains including
inalienablepubliclands,bodiesofwater,mineralandotherresourcesfoundwithinancestral
domainsareprivatebutcommunitypropertyoftheindigenouspeoples
(3) Section 6 in relation to section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the composition of ancestral
domainsandancestrallands
(4)Section7whichrecognizesandenumeratestherightsoftheindigenouspeoplesoverthe
ancestraldomains
(5)Section8whichrecognizesandenumeratestherightsoftheindigenouspeoplesoverthe
ancestrallands
(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
nonindigenouspeoplesforthedevelopmentandutilizationofnaturalresourcesthereinfora
periodnotexceeding25years,renewablefornotmorethan25yearsand
(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,forestcoverorreforestation.[2]

Petitioners also content that, by providing for an allencompassing definition of ancestral

domains and ancestral lands which might even include private lands found within said areas,
Sections3(a)and3(b)violatetherightsofprivatelandowners.[3]
In addition, petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA defining the powers and
jurisdiction of the NCIP and making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes
involvingancestraldomainsandancestrallandsonthegroundthattheseprovisionsviolatethe
dueprocessclauseoftheConstitution.[4]
Theseprovisionsare:
(1)sections51to53and59whichdetailtheprocessofdelineationandrecognitionofancestral
domainsandwhichvestontheNCIPthesoleauthoritytodelineateancestraldomainsand
ancestrallands
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385.htm

3/5

4/15/2016

CruzvsSec.ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources:135385:December6,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc

(2)Section52[i]whichprovidesthatuponcertificationbytheNCIPthataparticularareaisan
ancestral domain and upon notification to the following officials, namely, the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources, Secretary of Interior and Local Governments,
Secretary of Justice and Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, the
jurisdictionofsaidofficialsoversaidareaterminates
(3)Section63whichprovidesthecustomarylaw,traditionsandpracticesofindigenouspeoples
shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims of ownership, hereditary
succession and settlement of land disputes, and that any doubt or ambiguity in the
interpretationthereofshallberesolvedinfavoroftheindigenouspeoples
(4)Section65whichstatesthatcustomarylawsandpracticesshallbeusedtoresolvedisputes
involvingindigenouspeoplesand
(5)Section66whichvestsontheNCIPthejurisdictionoverallclaimsanddisputesinvolving
rightsoftheindigenouspeoples.[5]

Finally, petitioners assail the validity of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP
AdministrativeOrderNo.1,seriesof1998,whichprovidesthattheadministrativerelationship
of the NCIP to the Office of the President is characterized as a lateral but autonomous
relationship for purposes of policy and program coordination. They contend that said Rule
infringes upon the Presidents power of control over executive departments under Section 17,
ArticleVIIoftheConstitution.[6]
Petitionersprayforthefollowing:
(1)AdeclarationthatSections3,5,6,7,8,52[I],57,58,59,63,65and66andotherrelated
provisionsofR.A.8371areunconstitutionalandinvalid
(2)The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Chairperson and Commissioners of the
NCIP to cease and desist from implementing the assailed provisions of R.A. 8371 and its
ImplementingRules
(3) The issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Secretary of the Department of
EnvironmentandNaturalResourcestoceaseanddesistfromimplementingDepartmentof
EnvironmentandNaturalResourcesCircularNo.2,seriesof1998
(4)TheissuanceofawritofprohibitiondirectingtheSecretaryofBudgetandManagementto
cease and desist from disbursing public funds for the implementation of the assailed
provisionsofR.A.8371and
(5)TheissuanceofawritofmandamuscommandingtheSecretaryofEnvironmentandNatural
Resources to comply with his duty of carrying out the States constitutional mandate to
control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization and conservation of
Philippinenaturalresources.[7]

Afterduedeliberationonthepetition,themembersoftheCourtvotedasfollows:
Seven(7)votedtodismissthepetition.JusticeKapunanfiledanopinion,whichtheChief
Justice and Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago join, sustaining the validity of the
challenged provisions of R.A. 8371. Justice Puno also filed a separate opinion sustaining all
challenged provisions of the law with the exception of Section 1, Part II, Rule III of NCIP
AdministrativeOrderNo.1,seriesof1998,theRulesandRegulationsImplementingtheIPRA,
andSection57oftheIPRAwhichhecontendsshouldbeinterpretedasdealingwiththelarge
scaleexploitationofnaturalresourcesandshouldbereadinconjunctionwithSection2,Article
XIIofthe1987Constitution.Ontheotherhand,JusticeMendozavotedtodismissthepetition
solelyonthegroundthatitdoesnotraiseajusticiablecontroversyandpetitionersdonothave
standingtoquestiontheconstitutionalityofR.A.8371.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385.htm

4/5

4/15/2016

CruzvsSec.ofEnvironmentandNaturalResources:135385:December6,2000:PerCuriam:EnBanc

Seven(7)othermembersoftheCourtvotedtograntthepetition.JusticePanganibanfiled
a separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3 (a)(b), 5, 6, 7 (a)(b), 8, and related
provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional.He reserves judgment on the constitutionality of
Sections58,59,65,and66ofthelaw,whichhebelievesmustawaitthefilingofspecificcases
bythosewhoserightsmayhavebeenviolatedbytheIPRA.JusticeVitugalsofiledaseparate
opinion expressing the view that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional.
Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, GonzagaReyes, and De Leon join in the separate opinions of
JusticesPanganibanandVitug.
Asthevoteswereequallydivided(7to7)andthenecessarymajoritywasnotobtained,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 is
DISMISSED.
Attached hereto and made integral parts thereof are the separate opinions of Justices
Puno,Vitug,Kapunan,Mendoza,andPanganiban.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, GonzagaReyes, Ynares
Santiago,andDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Puno,Vitug,Kapunan,MendozaandPanganibanJJ.,seeseparateopinion
[1]Rollo,p.114.
[2]Petition,Rollo,pp.1623.
[3]Id.at2325.
[4]Section1,ArticleIIIoftheConstitutionstates:Nopersonshallbedeprivedoflife,libertyorpropertywithoutdue

processoflaw,norshallanypersonbedeniedtheequalprotectionofthelaws.
[5]Rollo,pp.2527.
[6]Id.at2728.
[7]TranscriptofStenographicNotesofthehearingheldonApril13,1999,pp.56.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/135385.htm

5/5