Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR

Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine HELD:
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is
GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000 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
FACTS: remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as resources in their ancestral domains merely gives them, as owners and occupants of the land
citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. on which the resources are found, the right to the small scale utilization of these resources,
8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its and at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and exploitation.
implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA
and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public
ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources domain. They are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept
therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the
Constitution. 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.
ISSUE:Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen