2016110534

Lalata, John Frey B.

If one would scrutinize what IPRA is all about. It’s a matter which
everybody wants, to live in a way we want.

For all the assailed provisions of the said law, it is crystal clear that
the subject law does not possess any inconsistencies with the
present Constitution and as a matter of fact, even with the past
Constitutions of the Philippines. The ‘priority right’ that these
people want to shed light is not so persuasive as to dominate the
whole country just like what other narrow-minded people perceived
with the passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law. As majority would
have thought, upon the allowance and passage of this law, it will be
a stepping stone for these ethnic groups to be heard if their long
battle cry, since time immemorial with regard to their protected
lands which could not be a proper subject of the time-honored
principle of Regalian Doctrine.

To think critically, the Constitution and the assailed IPRA could be

harmonized. Long before the draft of all the Constitutions, the
rights of these indigenous cultural communities have long been
recognized. In fact, other states have adapted and found their way
to remedy their glaring injustice and inequality. These people if they
would be personally asked, they are just claiming what they
originally own. Besides, they are not prohibiting the State to wield
its power to exercise all its fundamental powers (e.g. police power) if
the circumstance would warrant such exercise. The indigenous
people explicitly allows the state to regulate all the relations as they
respect what the State, laws and all appropriate procedures.
Moreover, amidst all the racial discrimination they experience, they
still trust the national legal system and adhere to its policy
regulations as regards land disputes and processes to be followed.
Furthermore, they only assert their rights. As Article 19 of the New
Civil Code clearly enlighten us about the principle of abuse of
rights, these people exercise their rights not to cause any prejudice
nor inconvenience to those who are concerned. They in fact adhere
to the basic constitutional tenets of due process whether to be
substantive or procedural aspect.

With the highest respect to the petitioners namely: Former Isagani

Cruz, his fellow Cesar Europa and all the Justices of the Supreme
Court who voted for the unconstitutionality of Indigenous Peoples
Right Act (IPRA), it is not the time to remain in the shadows and
use of power as an element of hindrance and discrimination. These
specific classes of people are in favor of harmonization of laws and
are more willing to abide what the Constitution clearly mandates.
Some States have found their way just like Australia and Canada to
find time regarding these issues. We hope at this juncture that their
voices be heard not on the perspective of negativity but rather to
effectuate an end where all of us would be just, humane and
develop an orderly society.