Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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) on the ground that 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 XII of the
Constitution. Seven justices vote to dismiss the petition while the seven
other members of the Supreme Court move to grant the petition. As the
votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not
obtained, the case was redeliberated upon.
Justice Punos separate opinion: The IPRA Law is constitutional. The rights of
the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands may be acquired
in two modes: (1) by native title over both ancestral lands and domains; or
(2) by torrens title under the Public Land Act and the Land Registration Act
with respect to ancestral lands only.
Sec. 3 [l]. Native Title- refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains
which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of
private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus
indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish
Conquest.
Held: Yes. the resolutions which ratified it and made it binding on the City of
Manila expressly gave it full force and effect only until April 30, 2003. Thus,
at present, there is nothing that legally hinders respondent from enforcing
Ordinance No. 8027. Local Government Code imposes upon respondent the
duty, as city mayor, to " enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the
governance of the city." One of these is Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief
executive of the city, he has the duty to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long
as it has not been repealed by the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts. He
has no other choice because it is his ministerial duty to do so.
The Court stated that Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the
Philippines, along with the rest of the world, witnessed the horror of the
September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in
New York City. The objective of the ordinance is to protect the residents of
Manila from the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a
terrorist attack on the Pandacan Terminals. No reason exists why such a
protective measure should be delayed.
8. Chavez v. Public Estates Authority
G.R. No. 133250. November 11, 2003
Carpio, J.
Held: No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be
transferred to Amari as private lands will sanction a gross violation of the
constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands
comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered by certificates of title in the
name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain. The 592.15 hectares
of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources of
the public domain. The transfer (as embodied in a joint venture
agreement) to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares of
the Freedom Islands, is void for being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring
any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Furthermore, since the
Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to Amari ownership of 290.156 hectares
of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being
contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the
alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public
domain.
Held: Yes. When the question is one of public right and the object of the
mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are
regarded as the real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the
proceedings are instituted need not show that he has any legal or special
interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as
such interested in the execution of the laws. The information sought by the
petitioner in this case is the truth of the claim of certain government
employees that they are civil service eligibles for the positions to which they
were appointed. Public office being a public trust, it is the legitimate concern
of citizens to ensure that government positions requiring civil service
eligibility are occupied only by persons who are eligible. Availability of access
to a particular public record must be circumscribed by the nature of the
information sought, i.e., (a) being of public concern or one that involves
public interest, and, (b) not being exempted by law from the operation of
the constitutional guarantee (i.e. information about national security, trade
secrets). Since the information sought fall within these two requisites,
Legaspi has the right to be informed if the employees are eligible to civil
service.