Scribd
Upload
92 views2 pages

IPRA Constitutionality: Cruz vs DENR Case

The petitioners challenged provisions of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and its implementing rules on the basis that they violated the Philippine constitution's regalian doctrine, which reserves ownership of natural resources in public lands for the State. The Supreme Court ruled that IPRA does not contravene the constitution. While ownership of natural resources in ancestral domains remains with the State, IPRA grants indigenous cultural communities user rights over resources and priority in their development. Additionally, ancestral lands are considered private lands held by native title, not part of public lands. However, indigenous ownership is limited and does not include the right to alienate ancestral domains. As the Court vote resulted in a tie, the petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

King Monteclaro Montereal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
92 views2 pages

IPRA Constitutionality: Cruz vs DENR Case

The petitioners challenged provisions of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and its implementing rules on the basis that they violated the Philippine constitution's regalian doctrine, which reserves ownership of natural resources in public lands for the State. The Supreme Court ruled that IPRA does not contravene the constitution. While ownership of natural resources in ancestral domains remains with the State, IPRA grants indigenous cultural communities user rights over resources and priority in their development. Additionally, ancestral lands are considered private lands held by native title, not part of public lands. However, indigenous ownership is limited and does not include the right to alienate ancestral domains. As the Court vote resulted in a tie, the petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

King Monteclaro Montereal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Regalian Doctrine; Indigenous Cultural Communities

Cruz vs DENR
G.R. No. 135385
December 6, 2000
FACTS:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and
mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain
provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (R.A. 8371), otherwise known as the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
(Implementing Rules)
The IPRA recognizes the existence of the indigenous cultural communities or
indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in Philippine society. It grants
these people the ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral
lands, and defines the extent of these lands and domains.
The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that
these 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.

ISSUE:
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

RULING:
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution.
Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership
over the natural resources within their ancestral domain. Ownership over the
natural resources in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights
granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral
domains merely gives them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the
resources are found, the right to the small scale utilization of these resources, and
at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and exploitation.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the
public domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title,
which is a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant
from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of
their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right
to alienate the same.
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

You might also like