Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Subject:
Supreme Court judgments, Regalian doctrine, Ancestral domain, National patrimony, Customary laws,
Chilling effect syndrome
Facts:
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa bring this suit for prohibition and mandamus, challenging the
constitutionality of certain provisions of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 and its IRR.
Senator Juan Flavier and the leaders of the 112 groups of indigenous peoples claim that the IPRA is
constitutional. The Commission on Human Rights joined in claiming that the IPRA is an expression of the
principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of
those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous peoples.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the IPRA and its IRR on the following grounds:
(1) 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 12 of the Constitution;
(2) that by providing for an all encompassing definition of ancestral domains and ancestral lands
which might even include private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) violate the rights
of private landowners;
(3) the provisions of the IPRA defining the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making customary
law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands violate the
due process clause of the Constitution, and
(4) that Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, which
provides that the administrative relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is characterized
as a lateral but autonomous relationship for purposes of policy and program coordination infringes upon
the Presidents power of control over executive departments under Section 17, Article VII of the
Constitution.
As the votes among the SC Justices were equally divided (7-7) and the necessary majority was not
obtained, the case was re-deliberated upon. However, after re-deliberation, the voting remained the
same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is
dismissed.
Held:
Supreme Court judgments; judicial review
1. When the State machinery is set into motion to implement an alleged unconstitutional statute, the
| Page 1 of 4
Supreme Court possesses sufficient authority to resolve and prevent imminent injury and violation of the
constitutional process.
2. Where the votes in the Court en banc are equally divided and the necessary majority is not obtained,
the case is redeliberated upon, but if after deliberation, the voting remains the same, the petition is
dismissed pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Regalian doctrine
3. The Regalian Doctrine or jura regalia is a Western legal concept that was first introduced by the
Spaniards into the country through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas.
4. In its broad sense, the term jura regalia refers to royal rights, or those rights which the King has by
virtue of his prerogatives.
5. The Regalian theory does not negate native title to lands held in private ownership since time
immemorial.
Public land
6. The term public land referred to all lands of the public domain whose title still remained in the
government and are thrown open to private appropriation and settlement, and excluded the patrimonial
property of the government and the friar lands.
Ancestral domain
7. Ancestral domains are all areas belonging to Indigenous Cultural communities/ Indigenous Peoples
(ICCs/IPs) held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs by themselves or
through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously until the present,
except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a
consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings with government and/or private
individuals or corporations.
8. Ancestral domains comprise lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein and
includes ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned
whether alienable or not, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and
other natural resources.
9. They also include lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they
traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of
ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators.
Ancestral land
10. Ancestral lands are lands held by the ICCs/IPs under the same conditions as ancestral domains
except that these are limited to lands and that these lands are not merely occupied and possessed but
are also utilized by the ICCs/IPs under claims of individual or traditional group ownership.
11. These lands include but are not limited to residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests,
| Page 2 of 4
| Page 4 of 4