089 CRUZ vs NCIP

G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000

TOPIC: Privilege based on ethnicity
PONENTE: PER CURIAM

AUTHOR:
NOTES: (if applicable)

FACTS:
1. PetitionersIsaganiCruzandCesarEuropabroughtthissuitforprohibitionandmandamusascitizensandtaxpayers,assailingthe
constitutionalityofcertainprovisionsofRepublicActNo.8371(R.A.8371),otherwiseknownastheIndigenousPeoplesRights
Actof1997(IPRA),anditsImplementingRulesandRegulations(ImplementingRules).
2. HeassailedthevalidityoftheRepublicActNo.8371ortheIndigenousPeoplesRightsAct(IPRALaw)onthegroundthatthe
lawamounttoanunlawfuldeprivationoftheStatesownershipoverlandsofthepublicdomainaswellasmineralsandother
naturalresourcestherein,inviolationoftheregaliandoctrineembodiedinSection2,ArticleXIIoftheConstitution.
3. PetitionersassailtheconstitutionalityofthefollowingprovisionsoftheIPRAanditsImplementingRulesonthegroundthatthey
amounttoanunlawfuldeprivationoftheStatesownershipoverlandsofthepublicdomainaswellasmineralsandothernatural
resourcestherein,inviolationoftheregaliandoctrineembodiedinSection2,ArticleXIIoftheConstitution:
"(1)Section3(a)whichdefinestheextentandcoverageofancestraldomains,andSection3(b)which,inturn,definesancestrallands;
"(2)Section5,inrelationtosection3(a),whichprovidesthatancestraldomainsincludinginalienablepubliclands,bodiesofwater,
mineralandotherresourcesfoundwithinancestraldomainsareprivatebutcommunitypropertyoftheindigenouspeoples;
"(3)Section6inrelationtosection3(a)and3(b)whichdefinesthecompositionofancestraldomainsandancestrallands;
"(4)Section7whichrecognizesandenumeratestherightsoftheindigenouspeoplesovertheancestraldomains;
(5)Section8whichrecognizesandenumeratestherightsoftheindigenouspeoplesovertheancestrallands;
"(6)Section57whichprovidesforpriorityrightsoftheindigenouspeoplesintheharvesting,extraction,developmentorexplorationof
mineralsandothernaturalresourceswithintheareasclaimedtobetheirancestraldomains,andtherighttoenterintoagreementswith
nonindigenouspeoplesforthedevelopmentandutilizationofnaturalresourcesthereinforaperiodnotexceeding25years,renewable
fornotmorethan25years;and
"(7)Section58whichgivestheindigenouspeoplestheresponsibilitytomaintain,develop,protectandconservetheancestraldomains
andportionsthereofwhicharefoundtobenecessaryforcriticalwatersheds,mangroves,wildlifesanctuaries,wilderness,protected
areas,forestcoverorreforestation.
4.Petitionersalsocontentthat,byprovidingforanallencompassingdefinitionof"ancestraldomains"and"ancestrallands"which
mightevenincludeprivatelandsfoundwithinsaidareas,Sections3(a)and3(b)violatetherightsofprivatelandowners.
Inaddition,petitionersquestiontheprovisionsoftheIPRAdefiningthepowersandjurisdictionoftheNCIPandmakingcustomarylaw
applicabletothesettlementofdisputesinvolvingancestraldomainsandancestrallandsonthegroundthattheseprovisionsviolatethe
dueprocessclauseoftheConstitution.
Theseprovisionsare:
"(1)sections51to53and59whichdetailtheprocessofdelineationandrecognitionofancestraldomainsandwhichvestontheNCIP
thesoleauthoritytodelineateancestraldomainsandancestrallands;
"(2)Section52[i]whichprovidesthatuponcertificationbytheNCIPthataparticularareaisanancestraldomainanduponnotification
tothefollowingofficials,namely,theSecretaryofEnvironmentandNaturalResources,SecretaryofInteriorandLocalGovernments,
SecretaryofJusticeandCommissioneroftheNationalDevelopmentCorporation,thejurisdictionofsaidofficialsoversaidarea
terminates;
"(3)Section63whichprovidesthecustomarylaw,traditionsandpracticesofindigenouspeoplesshallbeappliedfirstwithrespectto
propertyrights,claimsofownership,hereditarysuccessionandsettlementoflanddisputes,andthatanydoubtorambiguityinthe
interpretationthereofshallberesolvedinfavoroftheindigenouspeoples;
"(4)Section65whichstatesthatcustomarylawsandpracticesshallbeusedtoresolvedisputesinvolvingindigenouspeoples;and
"(5)Section66whichvestsontheNCIPthejurisdictionoverallclaimsanddisputesinvolvingrightsoftheindigenouspeoples." 5
Finally,petitionersassailthevalidityofRuleVII,PartII,Section1oftheNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.1,seriesof1998,which
providesthat"theadministrativerelationshipoftheNCIPtotheOfficeofthePresidentischaracterizedasalateralbutautonomous
relationshipforpurposesofpolicyandprogramcoordination."TheycontendthatsaidRuleinfringesuponthePresidentspowerof
controloverexecutivedepartmentsunderSection17,ArticleVIIoftheConstitution

ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional.

HELD: YES. The Supreme Court deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation they voted and reached a 7-7 vote. They
deliberated again and the same result transpired. Since there was no majority vote, Cruzs petition was dismissed and the
constitutionality of the IPRA law was sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may include public domain somehow against
the regalian doctrine.
RATIO:
Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition. Justice Kapunan filed an opinion, which the Chief 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
Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, the Rules and Regulations Implementing the IPRA, and Section 57 of the IPRA
which he contends should be interpreted as dealing with the large-scale exploitation of natural resources and should be read
in conjunction with Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. On the other hand, Justice Mendoza voted to dismiss
the petition solely on the ground that it does not raise a justiciable controversy and petitioners do not have standing to
question the constitutionality of R.A. 8371.
Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. Justice Panganiban filed 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 Sections 58, 59, 65, and 66 of the law, which he believes must await the filing of specific cases
by those whose rights may have been violated by the IPRA. Justice Vitug also filed a separate opinion expressing the view
that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon
join in the separate opinions of Justices Panganiban and Vitug.
As the 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. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):