LAND AND LAND USE

1. CRUZ VS DENR
-filing case for prohibition and mandamus re: constitutionality of IPRA (indigenous people rights act and its IRR)
- Sept 29, 1988 resolution- Court required respondent to comment
(respondent IPRA)
- defent the constitutionalisty of IPRA and pray that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit.
(respondent Sec DENR and DBM to Solicitor General)
- IPRA is partly unconstitutional
(Ground)
that it grants ownership over natural resources to indigenous peoples and prays that the petition be granted in part.
INTERVENORS:
1.Flavier et. al
-file for motion for leave to intervene
-join NCIP- defending the constitutionality of IPRA and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
2. CHR
-file a motion to intervene to appear as amicus curiae
-stated that State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like indigenous peoples
-prated for dismissal of the petition
3. Ikalahan Indigenous people + haribon foudation
-same motion w/ comment in intervention
-agreed and pray for dismissal
(ALL GRANTED)

(PETITIONER ASSAIL CONSTITUTIONALITY)

1.provisions of IPRA and IRR 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:
2.contends that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of "ancestral domains" and "ancestral lands" which might even include private lands violate the
rights of private landowners
3. question 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 on the ground that these provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution
4. validity of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998- infringes uponthe Presidents power of control over executive
departments under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution

HELD:
Seven Voted to dismiiss the petition
1. Justice Kapunan,Bellosillo, Quisumbing and Santiago- sustain the validity of the callenged provisions of RA 8371
2. Justice Puno-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
-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
3. Justice Mendoza- it does not raise a justiciable controversy and petitioners do not have standing to question the constitutionality of R.A. 8371

Seven other members voted to GRANT the petition

1. Justice Panganiban- that Sections 3 (a)(b), 5, 6, 7 (a)(b), 8, and related provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional
-reserves judgment on the constitutionality of Sections 58, 59, 65, and 66 of the law
2. Justice Vitug - Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional
3. Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon-

equally devided voting leads to deliberation

after deliberation= same voting

Per Rule 56 SEc 7 of Rules of Civil Procedure: PETITION IS DISMISSED.