UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

Constitutional Law – LAW 121

Dante B. Gatmaytan

CRUZ vs. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL SOURCES

Per Curiam
G.R. No. 135385 – December 6, 2000.

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8371 (Indigenous People’s Rights Act),
and file a suit in the hopes of stopping the government from implementing its provisions, on the ground
of alleged conflict with the Constitution’s Regalian doctrine. The decision was a split vote and the
petitions were dismissed.

FACTS:
● Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa assailed the constitutionality of certain provisions in
RA No. 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA).
● Court asked for the respondents’ comments; oral arguments were commenced on April 13,
1999.
● Petitioners claimed the following:
○ Re: assailed IPRA provisions
■ that they amount to unlawful deprivation of State’s ownership over lands of
public domain, violating the Regalian doctrine of Sec. 2, Art. XII of the
Constitution
■ that by providing an all-encompassing definition of “ancestral domain” and
“ancestral lands” including private lands within the said areas, it deprives
private landowners of their rights
■ that the provisions of IPRA defining the powers and jurisdiction of the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and making customary law applicable
in settling disputes violate the due process of law
○ Re: NCIP Administrative Order No. 1
■ that the administrative relationship between NCIP and Office of the President is
an encroachment on Executive power; it is characterized as a lateral but
autonomous relationship for policy and program coordinating purposes.
● They filed the suit as taxpayers and citizens, praying for:
○ a declaration that the said provisions of the IPRA are unconstitutional
○ a writ of mandamus for the Secretary to carry out his duty complying to constitutional
mandate to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization, and
conservation of Philippine natural resources; and prohibition
○ a issuance of a writ of prohibition to cease and desist from implementing the assailed
provisions of RA 8371 and DENR Circular No. 2; and from disbursing public funds for the
implementation of these assailed provisions.
● Seven (7) justices voted to dismiss the petition, while seven (7) voted to grant it. Pursuant to
Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition was dismissed because majority
was not obtained.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not RA No. 8371 is unconstitutional.

HELD: (case was written per curiam; Justices Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, and Panganiban
contribute separate opinions on the case, along with their votes.)
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law – LAW 121
Dante B. Gatmaytan
Puno, J.
Voted to uphold the constitutionality of the IPRA. (“... It was enacted by Congress to correct a grave
historical injustice to our indigenous people.”)

History
● Regalian doctrine was first introduced by the Spaniards through the Law of the Land.
○ When the PH was ceded to the US, the US found no special laws governing land in the
PH and decided to keep the Law of the Land.
○ Valenton case: upheld that length of possession/occupancy does not factor in
ownership; title does.
○ Regalian doctrine preserved in our Constitution, which is what petitioners claim the IPRA
violates.

Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA)

● Recognizes IPs and ICCs as a distinct sector in the Philippine community
○ grants ownership and possession (native title) of their ancestral domains and lands
○ also given the right to self-governance, preservation of culture, and development of
their own sciences and technologies
● National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) is an independent agency under the Office of
the President created to carry out the IPRA.
● “Indigenous people” (or “indigenous cultural community”) is defined as a group of people (or
homogenous societies) who have continuously lived as an organized community on communally
bounded and defined territory.
○ Notable characteristics: customary laws, absence of [concept of] private land
● 1974: Marcos promulgated PD no. 410 (Ancestral Lands Act), which decreed the provision of
land certificates to natural cultural communities who would register their claims;
○ The objective was not fulfilled because many of the said lands were used in projects.
● The Aquino administration focused on preservation, acknowledging that land is central to the
IP’s existence.

IPRA as a Novel Piece of Legislation

● The product of six regional and one national consultation with IP’s, meant to address the
centuries-old neglect of indigenous people.
● Two governing concepts: 1) native land, and 2) parens patriae

Provisions Do NOT Contravene the Constitution

● IPRA grants a distinct kind of ownership of ancestral domains and lands, with IP’s having a
decisive role in self-delineation of their territories.
● Certificate of Ancestral Land Title will also be registered in the Register of Deeds
○ IPRA classifies native land as never having been public in the first place.
○ Upon registering, IPRA converts ancestral land into public agricultural land which may
be disposed of by the State (making them private).
■ People have the option of securing a title for their individually-owned land.
■ Limited ownership: does not include the right to alienate the same.
○ Carino v. Insular Gov’t = only case to specifically and categorically recognize native land
(granted justice and due process to indigenous people)
● The legislature is simply introducing a new type of ownership in passing the IPRA: communal.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law – LAW 121
Dante B. Gatmaytan
○ Customary law is recognized under the civil code as a source of law, and a primary
source of rights.
○ Sections 7 and 8 of the IPRA grants a full list of rights to IPs over their ancestral domains
and lands.
● The right of the IPs to develop natural resources within the ancestral domain does not deprive
the State of ownership over the natural resources, and control and supervision of the
exploration, development, utilization, and responsibility of the said resources.
○ As owner of natural resources (public domain), state has primary power to conduct said
activities but may allow the private sector to help.
○ IPRA doesn’t change the ownership of the state over natural resources; it is not stated in
the law that natural resources are covered.
○ Small-scale utilization allowed: IP’s may manage and conserve natural resources for
future generations.
○ Large-scale utilization allowed: IP’s have priority rights/are given preference in
harvesting, extraction, development, etc.
○ State is not deprived of any control.

IPRA is a recognition of active participation in indigenous international movement.

● Growing concern due to disrespect from human rights
● international institutions realize the necessity for it.

Vitug, J.
Voted to grant the petition.
● hints that petitioners have no substantial interest in the topic, but the Court once again relaxes
this locus standi requirement because it’s an important issue
● Sec. 3(a) defining “ancestral domain” = IPRA withdraws from public domain the so-called
ancestral domains covering hectares
● By giving them their powers of self-governance in Sec. 7, IPRA goes beyond context of
fundamental law and undue delegation/unacceptable abdication of State authority over a
significant area of our country’s patrimony
● Carino (downgrading of the Regalian doctrine) cannot overwhelm the entire will of the people,
that which is manifested in the Constitution
● Re: Sec. 5, Art. XII of Constitution “applicability of customary laws” = Congress’s aim is not to
simply end it at “customary laws” shall govern, but “to look more closely into customary laws
and bring them into our body of laws"

Kapunan, J.
Voted to dismiss the petition
● Indigenous people have occupied lands since time immemorial, and that
● The framers of the 1987 Constitution saw the opportunity to actualize the ideals of people
empowerment and social justice, and to reach out particularly to the marginalized sectors of
society. They incorporated into the constitution several provisions protecting the rights and
interests of indigenous people.
● IPRA was enacted precisely to implement the foregoing constitutional provisions.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law – LAW 121
Dante B. Gatmaytan
● The petition presents an actual controversy because there exists a live controversy involving the
clash of legal rights (unconstitutional abdication of State ownership over lands of the public
domain and other natural resources).
● Petitioners have standing as citizens (to ensure that the national patrimony is not alienated) and
as taxpayers (to restrain officials from wasting public funds).
● The petition for prohibition and mandamus is not an improper remedy because the prohibition
will restrain the public officials from implementing the questioned provisions and the
mandamus will compel the Secretary of the DENR to perform his duty to control and supervise
the exploration, development, utilization, and conservation of the country’s natural resources.
● The issue of prime concern revolves around the constitutionality of the certain provisions of
IPRA, and it is not unconstitutional because ancestral lands and domains do not fall under the
Regalian theory. The exception to the rule is that any land that should have been in the
possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since time immemorial. They did
not intend to deprive natives of their property. The Carino doctrine only applies to alienable
lands of the public domain.
● The first foal of the national economy is the more equitable distribution of opportunities, income
and wealth. The idea is towards the balancing of interests, it does not infringe upon the State’s
ownership over the natural resources within the ancestral domains.
● They are “private but community property”, which means that “they “cannot be sold, disposed
or destroyed”.
● It does not violate the Due Process clause because there are sufficient checks in the law against
any abuse by the NCIP (Sec 67), and that the NCIP should be capable of delivering justice to the
non-indigenous peoples.

Mendoza, J.
Voted to dismiss the petition
● Judicial power is vested only to cases and controversies for the determination of such
proceedings as are established by law for the protection or enforcement of rights or the
prevention, redress or punishment of wrongs.
● The purpose of this suit is not to enforce property right of the petitioners or to demand
compensation for injuries suffered by the enforcement of the law, but only to settle what they
believe to be the doubtful character of the law in question.
● Judicial power cannot be extended to matters which do not involve actual cases or controversies
without upsetting the balance of power among the three branches of government.
● The only instance where a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is when it operates in the area
of freedom of expression.
○ The overbreadth doctrine permits the party to challenge the validity of the statute.
● For the Court to exercise its power of review when there is no controversy is to run the risk that,
in adjudicating abstract or hypothetical questions, its decision will be based on speculation
rather than experience.

Panganiban, J.
Voted to partially grant the petition and to declare as unconstitutional sections 3(a) and (b), 5, 6, 7(a)
and (b), 8 and related provisions of RA 8371 (concurring and dissenting opinion)
● agrees with Justice Katipunan that there is an actual case or controversy
● IPRA violates and contravenes the Constitution because 1) it grants rights of ownership over
lands of the public domain which are supposed to be owned by the State, and 2) it dilutes the
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law – LAW 121
Dante B. Gatmaytan
authority of the State to oversee the “exploration, development, and utilization of natural
resources”.
● While IPRA is primarily enacted pursuant to the state policy to “recognize and prmote rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development”, it
contravenes the Regalian Doctrine.
● Justice Katipunan upholds that ancestral domains are outside the coverage of public domains,
but Justice Panganiban submits that all Filipinos, indigenous or not, are still subject to the
Constitution.
● The presumption is that “all lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State”.
● Since IPRA defines ancestral domains as including the natural resources found therein and
further states that ICCs own these ancestral domains, then it means that ICCs can own natural
resources.
○ Panganiban’s main contention: It violates the inalienability of Natural Resources and
Public Domain. They directly contravene Sec 2, Art 12 of the Constitution.
● IPRA does not specify area of term limits to the lands and domains.