Former Justice Isagani Cruz, a noted constitutionalist, assailed the validity of the Republic Act No.

8371 or the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA Law) on the ground that the law 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. The IPRA law basically enumerates the
rights of the indigenous peoples over ancestral domains which may include natural resources.
In addition, Cruz et al contend 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) of said law
also violate the rights of private landowners.
ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional.
HELD: The Supreme Court deliberated upon the matter,

involving the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8371,

otherwise known as Indigenous Peoples Rights. 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.
One of the more pecrceptive separate opinions is that of Justice Reynato Puno, who discussed the salient points of
said law. He wrote;
The IPRA recognizes the existence of the Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous People
(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 ownership given is
the Indigenous concept of ownership under customary law which traces its origin to native tilte.

The IPRA is a Novel Prize of Legislation

A.

The Legislative history of IPRA

It was to address the centuries-old neglect of the Philippine Indigenous Peoples that the Tenth Congress of
the Philippines, by their joint efforts, passed and approved R.A. No. 8173, the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act of 1997. The law was a consolidation of two billsSenate Bill No. 1728 and House Bill No. 9125.

The Provisions of the IPRA do not contravene the Constitution.

A.

Ancestral Domains and Ancestral Lands are Private Property of Indigenous People and do not
Constitute part of the Land of the Public Domain.
The IPRA grants to ICCs/IPs a distinct kind of ownership over ancestral domains and ancestral lands.
Ancestral Lands and Ancestral Domains are not the same as defined in Section 3(a) and (b) of IPRA.

Ancestral Domains are all areas belonging to ICCs/IPs held under the 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.
Ancestral Lands are lands held by the ICCs/IPs under the same conditions as ancestral domains
except that these are limited to the lands and that these lands are not merely occupied and possessed
but are also utilized by the ICCs/ IPs under the claims of individual or traditional group ownership.

B.

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.
The registration under the Public Land Act and Land Registration Act recognizes

the concept of

ownership under the civil law. This ownership is based on adverse possession for a specific period and
harkens to Section 44 of the Public Land Act on administrative legislation(free patent) of imperfect or
incomplete titles and section 48(b) and (c) of the same act on judicial confirmation of imperfect and
incomplete titles.
C.

Sections 7(a), 7(b), and 57 of the IPRA Do Not Violate the Ragalian Doctrine Enshrined in Section 2,
Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
1.

The Rights of the ICCs/IPs Over their Ancestral Domains and Lands. Section 7 Provides for the
rights.

2.

The Right of ICCs/IPs to develop Lands and Natural Resources within the ancestral domains Does
Not Deprive the State of Ownership Over Natural Resources and Control and Supervision in their
Development and Exploitation.

As owner of the Natural Resources, the State is accorded Primary power and responsibility in the
exploitation, development and utilization of these natural resources. The State may directly
undertake the exploitation and development by itself, or, it may allow participation by the private
sector through co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements. These agreement
may be for a period of 25 years. The State, through congress, may allow small scale utilization of
natural resources by Filipino citizens. For Large Scale exploitation of these resources, the State
through the President, may enter into technical and financial assistance agreements with foreignowned corporations.
Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the Law that grants to ICCs/IPs ownership over natural
resources within their Ancestral Domains. The Right of ICCs/IPs in their Ancestral Domains
includes ownership, but this Ownership is expressly defined and limited in Section 7(A).