THE IPRA CASE Art 12 Sec 2 Cruz v. Sec. of DENR et al.

(The facts of the case are relatively short and simple. The separate opinions made it long. Ironically, the justice who made the longest separate opinion this matter concerning natural resources was none other than Chief Justice Puno [then Associate Justice .) Facts: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa assail the constitutionalit o! the" RA #$%& a.'.a. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act o! &##% (IPRA) and its I(ple(enting Rules and Regulations (IRR): Sections $a" )" *" %" +" )%" and )+ a(ount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public do ain as well as inerals and other natural resources. Section $a and $," , pro-iding an all.enco(passing de!inition o! /ancestral do(ains0 and /ancestral lands"0 violate the ri!hts of private land owners. The 1CIP" 2ith regard to its po2ers and 3urisdiction" (a'ing custo(ar la2 applica,le to the settle(ent o! disputes concerning ancestral do(ain and ancestral lands -iolate the due process clause of the Constitution Rule 4II part II Section & o! 1CIP Ad(inistrati-e 5rder 1o. & 2hich pro-ides that /the ad(inistrati-e relationship o! the 1ational Co((ission on Indigenous Peoples (1CIP) to the 5!!ice o! the President is characterized as lateral ,ut autono(ous relationship !or purposes o! polic and progra( coordination0 infrin!es upon the "residents power of control over e#ecutive depart ents under Sec1$ Art$ of the Constitution. Issue: 671 the assailed sections o! the IPRA and the IRR -iolate the (entioned pro-isions and principles o! the Constitution. Held: The petition 2as dis issed. The initial -ote 2as tied. % 8ustices -oted to dis(iss the petition 2hile % other 3ustices -oted to grant it. Since the necessar -ote 2as not o,tained" the case 2as redeli,erated upon. A!ter the redeli,eration" the -otes re(ained the sa(e. Pursuant to Rule )*" Section % o! the Rules o! Ci-il Procedure" the petition 2as dis(issed. Separate opinions P915 (9pholding the IPRA): Re. 1ati-e title -s. Regalian :octrine 1ati-e title re!ers to the ICCs7IPs precon;uest rights to lands and do(ains held under a clai( o! pri-ate o2nership as !ar ,ac' as (e(or reaches. Follo2ing this concept" the lands o2ned , the ICCs7IPs are pri-ate lands and are ne-er dee(ed to ,e pu,lic lands. A !or(al recognition o! the land shall ,e e(,odied in a Certi!icate o! Ancestral :o(ain Title (CA:T) The concept o! a nati-e title is !irst applied in the case o! Cari<o -. Insular =o-ern(ent. Cari<o is the onl case that speci!icall and categoricall recognizes nati-e title. In the case" :on >ateo Cari<o an I,aloi" applied !or a possessor title under the Spanish >ortgage ?a2 alleging that he culti-ated the land and his ancestors o2ned the land since ti(e i((e(orial. The case 2as ,rought to the 9nited States Supre(e Court. The Philippine go-ern(ent in-o'ed the Reglian doctrine 2hile Cari<o alleged that he 2as a,solute o2ner o! the land jure gentium and it had ne-er ,een part o! the pu,lic do(ain. 8ustice 5li-er 6endell Hol(es held in !a-or o! Cari<o. The court laid the presu(ption that title o! a certain land held (&)

as !ar ,ac' as (e(or goes and (@) under a clai( o! pri-ate o2nership" is presu(ed to /ne-er ha-e ,een pu,lic land.0 Ancestral lands and do(ains do not !all 2ithin the classi!ication o! lands under Art. &@ sec.$. The concept is uni;ue as IPRA 2as (ade to address the (a3or concerns o-er the displace(ent o! the ICCs7IPs. Re. o2nership o! natural resources 1either is the IPRA contrar to the Regalian doctrine 2ith respect to the o2nership o! natural resources. The state re(ains to ,e the o2ner o! natural resources. The non. inclusion o! o2nership , the ICCs7IPs o-er natural resources in section %(a) o! the IPRA a!!ir(s the Regalian doctrine. 6hat is (erel pro-ided to the ICCs7IPs under the IPRA is the s(all scale utilization o! natural resources. 52nership o-er the natural resources in the ancestral do(ains re(ains 2ith the State and the ICCs7IPs are (erel granted: (&) the right to (anage and conser-e the( !or !uture generationsA (@) ,ene!it and share the pro!its !ro( their allocation and utilizationA and ($) negotiate their ter(s and conditions !or their eBploration. Thus" ICCs7IPs right o-er their natural resources ta'e the !or( o! (anage(ent or ste2ardship. These li(ited rights (ust ,e dee(ed as s(all scale utilization instead o! large scale utilization o! natural resources. This is eBpressl allo2ed under art. &@ sec. @ o! the constitution. In addition" ICCs7IPs are (andated under sec. %(,) o! the IPRA to (anage and conser-e the resources and ensure en-iron(ental and eBological protection 2ithin the do(ains 2hich duties , their -er nature necessaril re3ect utilization in a large.scale. Section )% o! the IPRA does not gi-e the ICCs7IPs the right to (anage or conser-e the natural resources. The la2 onl grants the ICCs7IPs priorit rights in the de-elop(ent and eBploration thereo!. Priorit rights (eans gi-ing pre!erence. It i(plied that there is a superior entit that o2ns these resources C the State. Thus" section )% is in !act an a!!ir(ation o! the Regalian doctrine C all natural resources !ound 2ithin the ancestral do(ains are o2ned , the State. In an case" the State is not (andated to grant the rights o-er the natural resources to the ICCs7IPsA it has the discretion 2hich option to pursue. !hat is the effect of the certificate precondition as re"uired #y Article $% of the IP&A' It is (erel a precondition prior to the issuance o! an concession" license or agree(ent o-er the natural resources that the su,3ect o! the agree(ent does not lie 2ithin the ancestral do(ains o! the ICCs7IPs. The 1CIP has no po2er o-er the grant or denial o! the concession. It (erel gi-es the 1CIP the authorit to ensure that the ICCs7IPs ha-e ,een in!or(ed o! the agree(ent and that their consent thereto has ,een o,tained. 4IT9= (9pholding the IPRA): Re. issue on delegation The pro-isions in IPRA in their totalit are ,e ond the conteBt o! the !unda(ental la2 and -irtuall a(ount to an undue delegation i! not an unaccepta,le a,dication o! State authorit o-er a signi!icant area o! the countr and its patri(on . Re. 27n the application o! custo(ar la2s the IPRA is -iolati-e o! the due process clause o! the Constitution I do not see this state(ent as sa ing that Congress (a enact a la2 that 2ould si(pl eBpress that /custo(ar la2s shall go-ern.0 The Constitutional ai( is to loo' closel into the custo(ar la2s and 2ith speci!icit and , proper recitals" to he2 the( and (a'e the( part o! the strea( o! la2s. The

due process clause (ust co(pl 2ith the re;uire(ents o! pu,lication in Tanada -. Tu-era.. A?IE1ATI51 5F 1AT9RA? RES59RCES Santa Rosa %inin! Co. &. 'eido (r. Facts: Santa Rosa >ining Co. holds )D (ining clai(s in Ca(arines 1orrte the Philippine Eill o! 8ul &" &#D@. P: &@&F 2as issued in &#%% re;uiring holders o! su,sisting and -alid patenta,le (ining clai(s to !ile a lease application 2ithin one ear !ro( appro-al o! decree. Santa Rosa did so 2ith reser-ations" that it 2as not 2ai-ing its rights o-er its (ining clai(s until the -alidit o! P: &@&F passes upon this Court. CFI alread rendered SR>CGs (ining shares as its o2n pri-ate and eBclusi-e propert . Respondents allege that SR>C has no standing to !ile this petition as it did not !ull eBhaust ad(inistrati-e re(edies. Secretar o! 1ational Resources !ound that FF o! the )D (ining clai(s 2ere -oid !or lac' o! -alid /tie points0 and the re(aining clai(s had alread ,een a,andoned and cancelled !or non.co(pliance 2ith legal re;uire(ents o! Phil Eill o! &#D@. Issue: 671 P: &@&F is unconstitutional. 671 S>RCGs (ining clai(s still su,sist ,e!ore challenging the constitutionalit o! P: &@&F e-en i! petitioner 2as not ,ound to eBhaust all ad(inistrati-e re(edies. Held: The petition is dis(issed. P:&@&F is not unconstitutional. P:&@&F is in accord to Sec +" Art &F o! &#%$ constitution and Sec @" Art &@ o! &#+% constitution. Ratio: Petitioner does ha-e a right o-er the (ining clai(s" ho2e-er" this right is not a,solute. It is (erel a possessor right. >ore so in this case 2here their clai(s are unpatented. The can ,e lost through a,andon(ent or !or!eiture or re-o'ed !or -alid legal grounds. P: &@&F is a -alid eBercise o! the State" as o2ner o-er lands o! the pu,lic do(ain o! 2hich the petitionerGs (ining clai( still !or( part" and o-er the patri(on o! the nation. >ere location does not (ean a,solute o2nership o! the a!!ected land or the (ining clai(. It (erel segregates the located land or area !ro( the pu,lic do(ain.

Sol. =en appealed to court o! appeals and re-ersed the decision o! the lo2er court and delared the land in-ol-ed as pu,lic land S>C su,(itting the !! alleged Jgra-e errorsJ &. CAHs !ailure ti hold that prescription is a (ode o! ac;uiring title or o2nership o! land and that the title thus ac;uired is Registra,le @. CAHs disregard o! S>CHs e-idence 2ere on the ,asis o! un!ounded suppositions and con3ectures $. CAHs re-ersal o! the !actual !indings o! the trial court 2hich had the opportunit o! o,ser-ing the de(eanor and sincerit o! the 2itnesses 671 the e-idence presented , the petitioner is su!!icient to 2arrant a ruling that S>C and7or its predecessor.in.interest has a registra,le right eBclusi-e and undisputed possession o! aliena,le pu,lic land !or the period prescri,ed , la2 creates the legal !iction 2here, the land upon co(pletion o! the re;uisite period ipso 3ure and 27o the need o! 3udicial or other sanction ceases to ,e pu,lic and ,eco(es pri-ate propert . It (ust ho2e-er ,e conclusi-el esta,lished to a-oid the erroneous -alidation o! actuall !ictitious clai(s o! possession o-er the propert in dispute ho2e-er in this case the predecessor.in.interest 2as not a,le to pro-ide these conclusi-e e-idence there 2as no proo! o! actual possession that no docu(ent e-idenced that the trans!er o! possession !ro( Sil-erio PerezH !ro( his parents S>C 2as not a,le to present other 2itnesses to corro,orate PerezH testi(on . Eeing uncorro,orated is si(pl ser-ing and hence undeser-ing o! an 2eight decision o! CA is here, a!!ir(ed

Article )**+ Section 2 Chavez vs. "EA and A%AR* (K Fran' I. Cha-ez -s. Pu,lic Estates Authorit and A>ARI Coastal Ea :e-Gt. Corporation) Facts: The go-ern(ent signed a contract 2ith the Construction and :e-elop(ent Corporation o! the Philippines (C:CP) to reclai( certain !oreshores and o!!shore areas o! >anila Ea (this contract includes the >anila.Ca-ite Coastal Road and Recla(ation Pro3ect (>CCRRP). Pres. >arcos issued P.:. &D+F creating PEA 2ith the tas' /to reclai( land" including !oreshore and su,(erged areas and to de-elop" i(pro-e" ac;uire" lease and sell an and all 'inds o! lands. >arcos trans!erred to PEA the lands reclai(ed in the !oreshore and o!!shore o! the >CCRRP. Pres. A;uino issued special patent no. $)&% granting to PEA the parcels o! land that 2ere reclai(ed under the >CCRRP. The Register o! :eeds o! >unicipalit o! Para<a;ue issued Trans!er Certi!icates o! Title gi-ing to PEA the three reclai(ed islands 'no2n as the /Freedo( Islands0. PEA entered into a 3oint -enture agree(ent 2ith A>ARI" a pri-ate corporation" to de-elop the Freedo( Islands. The t2o entities negotiated 2ithout pu,lic ,idding. The then Pres. Ra(os appro-ed the said agree(ent. Senate President Ernesto >aceda denounced the agree(ent as the /grand(other o! all sca(s0 and as a result" the proper Co((ittees conducted in-estigations 2ith the !ollo2ing !inding that /the reclai(ed lands are lands o! pu,lic do(ain 27c 2ere not classi!ied as aliena,le lands , the go-ern(ent0 so PEA cannot alienate these lands.

San %i!uel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals San >iguel Corp see's the re-ersal o! the decision o! the court o! appeals den ing its application !or registration o! a parcel o! land in -ie2 o! its !ailure to sho2 entitle(ent thereto. S>C purchased !ro( Sil-erio Perez a parcel o! land in Sta. Anastacia" Sto. To(as" Eatangas. In clai(ing o2nership o! the land S>C !iled ,e!ore CFI o! Eatangas an application !or its registration under ?and Registration Act Solgen opposed the application !or registration contending that S>CHs clai( o! o2nership on the ,asis o! a Spanish title or grant could no longer ,e a-ailed o! , the applicant as the *.(onth period prescri,ed , P: +#@ had elapsed that the parcel o! land in ;uestion is part o! pu,lic do(ain and S>C ,eing a pri-ate corporation is dis;uali!ied under sec && o! Art II4 !ro( holding aliena,le lands o! the pu,lic do(ain. There ,eing no opposition to the application S>C 2as allo2ed to esta,lish 3urisdictional !acts and to present additional e-idence 8udge A,a a granted the application o! registration and ad3udicating the propert in !a-or o! S>C

Petitioner assails the sale to A>ARI o! lands o! pu,lic do(ain as a ,latant -iolation o! Sec. $" Art. III o! the &#+% Constitution prohi,iting the sale o! aliena,le lands o! the pu,lic do(ain to pri-ate corporations. ?ater on" PEA and A>ARI signed the A(ended 8oint 4enture Agree(ent (the agree(ent see's to trans!er to A>ARI certain portions o! the reclai(ed lands7areas) 2hich 2as appro-ed , the 5!!ice o! the President under Pres. 8oseph Estrada :ue to the appro-al o! the a(ended 3oint -enture agree(ent" petitioner no2 pra s that on /constitutional and statutor grounds the renegotiated contract ,e declared null and -oid.0

(@) :oes the Chie! EBecuti-e ha-e the authorit and 3urisdiction to sell itL Held: The nature o! the Roppongi lot as propert !or pu,lic ser-ice is eBpressl spelled out , the ter(s o! the Reparations Agree(ent and the corresponding contract o! procure(ent 2hich ,ind ,oth the Phil. =o-Gt and the 8ap. =o-Gt. As propert o! pu,lic do(inion" the Roppongi lot is outside the co((erce o! (an. It cannot ,e alienated. The purpose is not to ser-e the State as a 3uridical person" ,ut the citizensA it is intended !or the co((on and pu,lic 2el!are and cannot ,e the o,3ect o! appropriation. Further(ore" said propert is correctl classi!ied under par. @ o! Art. F@D o! the Ci- Code as propert ,elonging to the State and intended !or so(e pu,lic ser-ice. The !act that the Roppongi site has not ,een used !or a long ti(e !or actual E(,ass ser-ice does not auto(aticall con-ert it to patri(onial propert . An such con-ersion happens onl i! the propert is 2ithdra2n !ro( pu,lic use. A propert continues to ,e part o! the pu,lic do(ain" not a-aila,le !or pri-ate appropriation or o2nership until there is a for al declaration on the part o! the go-ern(ent to 2ithdra2 it !ro( ,eing such. 9nder Art F@@ o! the Ci- Code" an a,andon(ent o! the intention to use said propert !or pu,lic ser-ice and to (a'e it patri(onial propert ust be definite. RA 1o. **)% (the CARP ?a2)" did not 2ithdra2 the Roppongi propert !ro( ,eing classi!ied as one o! pu,lic do(inion. That la2 re!ers to properties 2hich are aliena,le and not to those reser-ed !or pu,lic use or ser-ice. There!ore" it does not authorize the EBecuti-e :ept. to sell the Roppongi propert . The su,se;uent appro-al on 5cto,er F" &#++ , Pres. A;uino to sell the propert 2as pre(ature and does not ha-e the !orce and e!!ect o! la2 since the President had alread lost her legislati-e po2ers (, this ti(e" Cong. had alread con-ened !or (ore than a ear). It is not !or the President to con-e -alua,le real propert o! the go-ern(ent on his or her o2n sole 2ill. An such con-e ance (ust ,e authorized and appro-ed , a la2 enacted , the Congress. It re;uires eBecuti-e and legislati-e concurrence.

Issue:

671 A>ARI" a pri-ate corporation" can ac;uire and o2n under the A(ended 8oint 4enture Agree(ent $*%.) hectares o! reclai(ed !oreshore and su,(erged areas in >anila Ea in -ie2 o! Article III o! the &#+% Constitution" Sec. @ and $. Held: Petition is granted. The A(ended 8oint 4enture Agree(ent is here, declared null and -oid. Ratio: The Freedo( Islands are aliena,le islands o! the pu,lic do(ain. PEA (a lease these lands to pri-ate corporations. PEA (a onl sell these lands to Philippine citizens" su,3ect to o2nership li(itations in the &#+% Constitution and eBisting la2s. The su,(erged areas o! >anila Ea re(ain inaliena,le natural resources o! the pu,lic do(ain until classi!ied as aliena,le or disposa,le lands open to disposition and declared no longer needed !or pu,lic ser-ice. In their present state" the su,(erged areas are outside the co((erce o! (an. Since the A(ended 8oint 4enture Agree(ent see's to trans!er to A>ARI" a pri-ate corporation" o2nership o! a portion o! the Freedo( Islands" such trans!er is -oid !or ,eing contrar to Art. III" Sec. $ o! the &#+% Constitution 2hich prohi,its pri-ate corporations !ro( ac;uiring an 'ind o! aliena,le land o! the pu,lic do(ain. Since the A(ended 8oint 4enture Agree(ent also see's to trans!er to A>ARI o2nership o! part o! su,(erged areas o! the >anila Ea " such trans!er is -oid contrar to Art. III" Sec.@ o! the &#+% Constitution 2hich prohi,its the alienation o! natural resources other than agricultural lands o! the pu,lic do(ain. (15TE: E-en i! the go-ern(ent later on classi!ies the /su,(erged areas0 as aliena,le" such trans!er o! o2nership 2ill still ,e in-alid due to Sec. $" Art. III o! the &#+% constitution as eBplained in the preceding point).

'aurel v. ,arcia Facts: 9nder the Reparations Agree(ent 2ith the 8apan" the Phil. =o-Gt ac;uired F properties in 8apan. As one o! the ac;uired properties in 1-./" the Roppon!i propert 2as the site !or the Phil. E(,ass in 8apan until it 2as trans!erred to 1a(peidai in 1-$0 2hen the ,uilding at the Roppongi propert needed (a3or repairs. Ho2e-er" ,7c o! a lac' o! !unds" the propert has re(ained unde-eloped since that ti(e. Pres. A;uino issued E5 @#* entitling non.Fil citizens or entities to a-ail o! reparationsG capital goods and ser-ices in the e-ent o! sale" lease or disposition. Then" the EBecuti-e ,ranch decided to sell the reparations properties starting 2ith Roppongi. Petitioners see' to stop the sale o! the propert in 1--1. Issue: (&) Can the Roppongi propert and others o! its 'ind ,e alienated , the Phil. =o-GtL