WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF JURE REGALIA?
years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to
(REGALIAN DOCTRINE)
> Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be
traced to some grant, express or implied, from the Spanish
Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government,
and thereafter, the Philippine Republic
> In a broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those
rights to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives
> The theory of jure regalia was therefore nothing more than
a natural fruit of conquest
A. CONNECTED TO THIS IS THE STATE’S POWER
OF DOMINUUM
> Capacity of the state to own or acquire property—
foundation for the early Spanish decree embracing the feudal
theory of jura regalia
> This concept was first introduced through the Laws of the
Indies and the Royal Cedulas
> The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and
conquest. Consequently, all lands became the exclusive
patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown.
> The Law of the Indies was followed by the Ley Hipotecaria
or the Mortgage Law of 1893. This law provided for the
systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as
possessory claims
> The Maura Law: was partly an amendment and was the
last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines, which
required the adjustment or registration of all agricultural
lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the State
B. TAKE NOTE THAT THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE IS
ENSHRINED IN OUR PRESENT AND PAST
CONSTITUTIONS THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PROVIDES
UNDER NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY THE
FOLLOWING—
> “ Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and
fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.
With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. The exploration,
development, and utilization of natural resources shall be
under the full control and supervision of the State. The State
may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements
with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least
sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.
Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five
years, and under such terms and conditions as may be
provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water
supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the
measure and limit of the grant.”
> The abovementioned provision provides that except for
agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be
alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all
other natural resources must remain with the State, the
exploration, development and utilization of which shall be
subject to its full
control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into
coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing
agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization
C. THE 1987 PROVISION HAD ITS ROOTS IN THE
1935 CONSTITUTION
WHICH PROVIDES—
> Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the
public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural
resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their
disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be
limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which
is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant,
lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the
Government established under this Constitution. Natural
resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall
not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the
exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural
resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five
water rights for irrigation, water
supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, in which cases beneficial use
may be the measure and limit of the grant.
D. THE 1973 CONSTITUTION REITERATED THE
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
Section8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential
energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the
Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of
agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or
resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources
shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease
for the exploration, or utilization of any of the natural
resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twentyfive
years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply,
fisheries, or industrial uses other than development of water
power, in which cases, beneficial use may by the measure
and the limit of the grant.
THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE DOESN'T NEGATE NATIVE
TITLE. THIS IS IN PURSUANCE TO WHAT HAS BEEN
HELD IN CRUZ V. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
> Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act on the ground that it amounts to an
unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of
the public domain and all other natural resources therein, by
recognizing the right of ownership of ICC or IPs to their
ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the basis of native
title.
> As the votes were equally divided, the necessary majority
wasn’t obtained and petition was dismissed and the law’s
validity was upheld
> Justice Kapunan: Regalian theory doesn’t negate the
native title to lands held in private ownership since time
immemorial, adverting to the landmark case of CARINO V.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, where the US SC through Holmes
held: “xxx the land has been held by individuals under a
claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and
never to have been public land.”
> Existence of native titie to land, or ownership of land by
Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership
since time immemorial and independent of any grant from the
Spanish crown as an exception to the theory of jure regalia
> Justice Puno: Carino case firmly established a concept of
private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant
from the State and was based on the strong mandate
extended to the Islands via the Philippine Bill of 1902. The
IPRA recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs as a distinct
sector in the society. It grants this people the ownership and
possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands
and defines the extent of these lands and domains
> Justice Vitug: Carino cannot override the collective will of
the people expressed in the Constitution.
> Justice Panganiban: all Filipinos, whether indigenous or
not, are subject to the Constitution, and that no one is
exempt from its allencompassing provisions
The facts of Cariño v. Insular Government were brief:
The applicant and plaintiff in error is an Igorot of the Province
of Benguet, where the land lies. For more than fifty years
before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1989 (30 Stat. At L.,
1754), as far back as the findings go, the plaintiff and his
ancestors had held the land as owners. His grandfather had
lived upon it, and had maintained fences efficient for the
holding of cattle, according to the custom of the country, with
some of the fences, it seems, having been of much earlier
date. His father had cultivated parts and had used parts for of ceremonies which the Spaniards would not have permitted
pasturing cattle, and he had used it as a pasture in his turn. and had not the power to enforce.”
They all had been recognized as owners by the Igorots, and
The Court explained that the cases involving the land claims
he had inherited or received the land from his father, in
of Native Americans were inapplicable in this situation
accordance with Igorot custom. No document of title,
because the acquisition of the Philippines was not like the
however, had issued from the Spanish Crown, and although,
settlement of the white race in the United States. Whatever
in 1893-1894, and again in 1869-1879, he applied for one
consideration may have been shown to the North American
under the royal decrees then in force, nothing seems to have
Indians, the dominant purpose of the whites in America was
come of it, unless perhaps, information that lands in Benguet
to occupy the land. Evidently, however stated, the reason for
could not be conceded until those to be occupied for
our taking over the Philippines was different. No one, we
sanitarium, etc., had been designated-a purpose carried out
suppose would deny that, so far consistent with paramount
by the Philippine government and the United States. In 1901
necessities, our first object in the internal administration of
the plaintiff filed a petition, alleging ownership, under the
the islands is to do justice to the natives, not to exploit their
mortgage law, and the lands were registered to him, that
country for private gain. By the Organic Act of July 1, 1902…
process, establishing only a possessory title, it said.
all the property and rights acquired there by the United
The issue according to Justice Holmes was whether the States are to be administered “for the benefit of the
claimant, an Igorot, owned the land. The United States inhabitants thereof.”
government contented that Spain had title to all the lands in
In the Court’s view, the United States had bound itself to
the Philippines, except so far as it saw fit to permit private
administer the islands for the benefit of the inhabitants, and
titles to be acquired. It maintained that no prescription can be
not to exploit it for profit. However, the decision did not stop
claimed against Spanish empire and even if that was
there. It pointed out that the Philippine Bill of 1902 included a
possible, a decree in 1880 had set a deadline for the
Bill of rights that extended those safeguards to all the
registration of these titles. No title would be recognized as
inhabitants of the Philippines. The Court found it hard to
valid beyond that date. Since the land in question was not
believe that the United States interpreted the due process
registered, the government contended that it had become
clause not to apply to the inhabitants of Benguet. The
public (if it was already public). When the United States
“property” under the organic act protected “only that which
succeeded to the title of Spain, Cariño had no right which it
had become such by ceremonies of which presumably a
was bound to respect. The Court disagreed with the United
large part of the inhabitants never heard, and that it proposed
States in a decision that has remained as obscure as it is
to treat as public land what they, by native custom and by
significant.
long association – one of the profoundest factors in human
The Court admitted that Spain had embraced the universal thought-regarded as their own.”
feudal theory that all lands were held by the Crown.
While the government of the Philippines was empowered to
However, Justice Holmes, who spoke for the Court, said that
enact rules for perfecting titles to public lands and to issue
in practice sovereignty may vary in degree. “How far a new
patents to natives, the Court held that this power was
sovereign shall insist upon the theoretical relation of the
confined to lands which were admittedly public. It “had not
subjects to the head in the past, and how far it shall
continued for such a length of time and under such
recognize actual facts, are matters for it to decide.”
circumstances as to give rise to the understanding that the
The Igorots were never brought under the control of the occupants were owners.” The Court refused to believe that
Spaniards. The Court quipped that it would be almost certain there was an intent to declare every native who had not a
that Spain would not have granted registration of the property paper title a trespasser. This set the claims of all the wilder
that would not have made title valid. Regardless of Spain’s tribes afloat. The Court further held that there must be a
position about technical subtleties, this did not mean that presumption against the government when a private
under the dominion of the United States, Cariño had lost all individual claims property as his or her own. It went so far as
his rights. He was not a mere trespasser when the to say that the lands will be deemed private absent contrary
government succeeded as the new sovereign. A contrary proof. In what is probably the most potent statement ever
position, would “amount to denial of native titles throughout made on this subject by any Court, it held:
an important part of the Island of Luzon, at least for the want
Whatever the law upon these points may be…every
presumption is and ought to be against the government in a
case like the present. It might be proper and sufficient to say
that when as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land
has been held by individuals under a claim of private
ownership, it will be presumed to have been held in the same
way even before Spanish conquest, and never to have been
public land.
The Court proceeded to explain that the case would have
been similarly resolved had the case tried by the laws of
Spain. After examining the pertinent laws, the Court held that
We do not discover such clear proof that it was bad by that
[Spanish] law as to satisfy us that he does not own the land.
To begin with, the older decrees and laws cited by the
counsel for the plaintiff in error seem to suggest pretty clearly
that the natives were recognized as owing some lands,
irrespective of any royal grant. In other words, Spain did not
assume to convert all the native inhabitants of the Philippines
into trespassers or even tenants at will.
The Court pointed out that the Recopilacion de Leyes de Las
Indias (that body of edicts, decrees and orders that set out
Spain’s laws for her colonies) allowed confirmation of title
through prescription, and that title was admitted to exist that
owed nothing to the power of Spain beyond this recognition
in their books. The Court further explained that Spanish law
was not that stringent in requiring proof, ancient possession
being sufficient.
“As prescription, even against Crown lands, was recognized
by the laws of Spain, we see no sufficient reason for
hesitating to admit the title was recognized in the Philippines
in regard to lands over which Spain had only a paper
sovereignty.”
Clearly, the reference to Spanish law was inconsequential.
Justice Holmes discussed the issue only to clarify that
Cariño’s claim would have also prevailed, (this time under
prescription) had the Court resorted to Spanish laws. This
part of the discussion was surplusage because the lands
claimed by Cariño were already held to be private.
In concluding, Holmes wrote that “law and justice require that
the applicant should be granted what he seeks, and should
not be deprived of what, by the practice and belief of those
among whom he lived, was his property, through a refined
interpretation of an almost forgotten law of Spain.”
In the following portion of the paper, we analyze the Court’s
decision.
Cariño did not rely on precedent. Justice Holmes said that
whatever theories justified claims over “discovered” lands,
the truth was that conquerors were never able to see, much
less secure most of these areas. The fact that the Igorots had
never been assimilated or defeated by the Spaniards must
surely have been a substantial consideration. The court said
that title will not be extinguished simply because a territory is
occupied by an alien force.
Holmes’s language stripped the veneer of nobility that has
often been used to justify the dispossession of the Native
Americans. The experience in America was exposed as
nothing more than an ignoble, colossal capitalist venture
meant to take lands at the Indians’ expense. Cariño made no
explicit reference here to either superior culture or religion.
The Court then noted the second obstacles to the United
States’ claim: the United States had not asserted a claim
over the entire country. When Congress enacted the
Philippine bill of 1902, it extended the Bill of Rights to the
territory. The United States had stretched its protection,
particularly the due process clause, to all the inhabitants of
the Philippines. Ata this point, the Court had already
characterized the ancestral domain of the Igorots (and by
extension, those of other native peoples) as private. It should
be noted that the property here was private not because of
recognition of title by any sovereign. This was the result of
the Igorots’ “custom and long association” and “practice and
belief.”
The Court also mocked Spain’s claims over the entire
territory of the Philippines. Such claims could not defeat the
claim of Cariño based on laws that Spain had not the power
to enforce, or Cariño, living as he did with his unconquered
folk, had no reason to heed. The resolution of the case was
guided more by the Court’s determination to do justice rather
than to apply obscure laws. This explains Holmes’ refusal to
rely upon established doctrines and his liberal interpretation
of the Philippine Bill. No weight was ever placed upon
theories of conquest or alien laws that could not have been
known to or understood by a people so removed from the
potentates’ game of global takeover. Thus, unlike in North
America, the Court refused to deprive the Indian of his rights
by resorting to the laws of nations within the exclusive sphere
of a mere handful of nations. It would not construe laws to
deny the Igorots’ claim, and the executive and legislative acts
in any way that “would amount to a denial of native titles.”
It might be suggested that there is a difference between the
claims in Cariño and those of the North American Indians
because the former involved the assertion of an individual’s
private right consistent with western property schemes
against those asserted by an entire community. But there is
no evidence of this difference in Holmes’ language.
Neither can the differences in the result can be justified on
the ground that the Court viewed the claimants as a
“civilized” westernized people. The claimants in Cariño were
also considered inferior peoples, if subtly. The court made
conscious efforts to waive technicalities because the
claimants were Igorots, and were referred to as “’wilder
tribes.’”
But while they were, from the western legal perspective,
considered savage and uncivilized, the Court still found it
unfair to refuse recognition of their title.
through their industry and intelligence, become the absolute
owners of private property… (Cariño vs. Insular Government,
7 Phil. 132; Cariño vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449; 53
Law.Ed. 549; 41 Phil., 935).
In the United States the government distributed lands freely
to the American Indians and the dispose of the same without
the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. The Government,
having given the Indian his land without cost, it had a perfect
right to impose such condition upon the disposition of the
same as the Government might deem wise. In the Philippine
Islands, however, the non-Christian people have never been
given land by the government. They are therefore under no
obligation to the Government concerning the land they
acquire.

Cariño has been consistently upheld by the Philippine

Admittedly, the dissent’s interpretation of the jurisprudence
Supreme Court. And while it originally involved the claim of
on Native American land rights leaves much to be desired.
an individual “under a claim of private ownership” the
However, its use of the Cariño doctrine was faithful to
Philippine Supreme Court later expanded the doctrine to
Holmes’ dictum. Because of this confusion, there are
include lands held by a community, and lands that are
presently two streams of cases in the Philippines, both as
“unoccupied and unimproved.” Unfortunately, some
prominent, as they are glaringly contradictory. In one line,
confusion has attended the application of doctrine.Cariño has
lands held since time immemorial are recognized as private.
been cited as authority for the Public Land Act which allows
It has even been held that subsequent reclassification of land
registration of public lands as private possession if the
cannot impair the rights of long-term occupants. In the other
claimant has been in open, continuous, exclusive and
line, public agricultural lands become private lands and could
notorious possession of the said lands for thirty years. The
therefore be titled. This is if the claimant can show that there
error is obvious. Cariño involved lands which had never been
has been continuous possession thereof for at least thirty
public. The prescriptive remedy under the Public Land Act
years. Cariño has been cited as authority for both. A recent
admits that the land was initially public. However, it becomes
case cited both lines of cases without the Court observing
private (and therefore may be titled) after the lapse of the
any incongruity.
prescriptive period.
Some earlier cases did manage to make a distinction
Confusion in the Court had surfaced as early as 1931 in De
between the two claims. In these cases, the Court would first
Palas v. Saito and Madrazo.In that case, the Supreme Court
check if the land is private under the Cariño doctrine, and
held that the sale of property made by a member of the
then examine if it has become private under the Public Land
Bagobo tribe without the approval of the Director of the Non-
Act. While the Cariñodoctrine may be in jurisprudential limbo,
Christian tribes was null and void. While the Bagobos
the case does surface periodically in the discussions of the
retained their land, the decision showed the Court was
other branches of government.
confused about its character. Justice Johnson in the lone
dissent explained that: There is absolutely no analogy Courts in the United States had several occasions to apply
between the relations of the non-Christian people of the the Cariño decision. As will be shown, however, these courts
Philippine Islands to the Philippine Government as compared had, for the most part, also misinterpreted the doctrine.
with the relation of the American Indians to the American These cases may be divided into those that involved lands in
government. its territories, and those involving claims within the
continental United States.
A citizen of the Philippine Islands, whether non-Christian or
Christian, has a perfect right to dispose of his private In the Territories
property freely without the necessity of securing the consent
The first claims involved lands in Mexico. In Pueblo de Sta.
of any person of the Government…Hundreds and thousands
Rosa v. Fall, the claimants filed a bill in equity in the
of the non-Christian people of the Philippine Islands have,
Supreme Court in the District of Columbia to restrain the
Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the soon as possible, determine, by law, the specific limits of forest lands
and national parks, marking clearly their boundaries on the ground.
General Land Office from opening its lands to sale, entry,Thereafter, such forest lands and national parks shall be conserved
and may not be increased nor diminished, except by law. The
and settlement as public lands of the United States. The
Congress shall provide for such period as it may determine, measures
plaintiffs alleged that the lands were granted and concededto prohibit logging in endangered forests and watershed areas.
to the pueblo of Sta. Rosa by the laws and customs of the
Indians, antedating the Spanish discovery of America and the
laws of Spain and Mexico. The lands were part of the territory
ceded by Mexico to United States under the Gadsden Treaty.
In resolving the issue, the Court explained that the title of the
Indian inhabitants of a pueblo in Mexico has been recognized
not only by the Mexican, but also by Spanish laws. Such
recognition rests not upon title by grant or charter from the
crown, but it may be established and was frequently
established by prescription. It cited Cariño to stress that
prescription against the Crown was recognized by Spanish
laws. It said, “[t]here can be no question, we think that prior
to the cession under the Gadsden Treaty the Papago Indians
had acquired a title which was subject to recognition by the
government of Mexico.” It concluded that, had the record title
been established in Mexico to which this pueblo was clearly
entitled, it could not be divested by the sort of evidence
adduced in this case. This would have been the proper case
to cite Cariño because the claim was premised upon the laws
and customs of Indians that antedated the Spanish discovery
of America. The land was ceded by Spain to the United
States. No grant was relied upon, and there was an assertion
that both Spanish and Mexican laws relied upon, and there
was an assertion that both Spanish and Mexican laws
recognized such Indian title. Unfortunately, the court’s
reliance upon Cariño was merely to recognize the right of the
claimant through prescription, and not to reaffirm the rule that
lands held since time-immemorial are private lands.
The second case came some twenty years later. Playa de
Flor Land and Improvement CO. v. United States involved
lands in Panama. The complainants, an unincorporated
association, alleged that they had acquired title and rights of
ownership to specific real property based on prescription
under the name of Playa del Flor Land and Improvement Co.,
their predecessors in interest, and those who had been and
were in the actual, open, notorious, and adverse possession,
use, and cultivation of the lands for more than forty years
before the Treaty between the United States and the
Republic of Panama. They also alleged that they were
forcibly and unlawfully evicted and dispossessed of the lands
and improvements by the United States and that the joint
owners had not been paid for the property taken from them.
Constitution, Article XII, Section 4. The Congress shall, as
EO 192, Series of 1987
Section 4
Mandate
The Department shall be the primary government agency
responsible for the conservation, management,
development, and proper use of the country's
environment and natural resources, specifically forest
and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in
reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public
domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all
natural resources as may be provided for by law in order
to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived
therefrom for the welfare of the present and future
generations of Filipinos.
To accomplish its mandate, the Department shall be guided
by the following objectives that will serve as basis for policy
formulation:
Assure the availability and sustainability of the country's
natural resources through judicious use and systematic
restoration or replacement, whenever possible;
Increase the productivity of natural resources in order to
meet the demands for forest, mineral, and land resources of
a growing population;
Enhance the contribution of natural resources for achieving
national economic and social development;
Promote equitable access to natural resources by the
different sectors of the population;
Conserve specific terrestrial and marine areas representative
of the Philippine natural and cultural heritage for present and
future generations.
RA 7160 or Local Government Code
SEC. 16. General Welfare. - Every local government unit
shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as
powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient
and effective governance, and those which are essential to
the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective
territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure
and support, among other things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety,
enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of appropriate and
self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve
public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social
justice, promote full employment among their residents,
maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.
SEC. 17. Basic Services and Facilities. - (a) Local
government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall
continue exercising the powers and discharging the duties
and functions currently vested upon them. They shall also
discharge the functions and responsibilities of national
agencies and offices devolved to them pursuant to this
Code. Local government units shall likewise exercise such
other powers and discharge such other functions and
responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to
efficient and effective provision of the basic services and
facilities enumerated herein.
Republic Act No. 8371 October 29, 1997
AN ACT TO RECOGNIZE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES/INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, CREATING A
NATIONAL COMMISSION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE,
ESTABLISHING IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of n) To decide all appeals from the decisions and acts
the Philippines in Congress assembled:: of all the various offices within the Commission:
CHAPTER I o) To promulgate the necessary rules and
GENERAL PROVISIONS regulations for the implementation of this Act;
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The p) To exercise such other powers and functions as
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997." may be directed by the President of the Republic of
CHAPTER VII the Philippines; and
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES q) To represent the Philippine ICCs/IPs in all
(NCIP) international conferences and conventions dealing
Section 38. National Commission on Indigenous Cultural with indigenous peoples and other related concerns.
Communities /Indigenous Peoples (NCCP). - to carry out Section 57. Natural Resources within Ancestral
the policies herein set forth, there shall be created the Domains. - The ICCs/IPs shall have the priority rights in the
National Commission on ICCs/IPs (NCIP), which shall be the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any
primary government agency responsible for the formulation natural resources within the ancestral domains. A non-
and implementation of policies, plans and programs to member of the ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take
promote and protect the rights and well-being of the ICCs/IPs part in the development and utilization of the natural
and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25) years
rights thereto. renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years: Provided,
Section 44. Powers and Functions. - To accomplish its That a formal and written agreement is entered into with the
mandate, the NCIP shall have the following powers, ICCs/IPs concerned or that the community, pursuant to its
jurisdiction and function: own decision making process, has agreed to allow such
operation: Provided, finally, That the all extractions shall be
a) To serve as the primary government agency used to facilitate the development and improvement of the
through which ICCs/IPs can seek government ancestral domains.
assistance and as the medium, thorough which such
assistance may be extended; Section 58. Environmental Consideration. - Ancestral
domains or portion thereof, which are found necessary for
b) To review and assess the conditions of ICCs/IPs critical watersheds, mangroves wildlife sanctuaries,
including existing laws and policies pertinent thereto wilderness, protected areas, forest cover, or reforestation as
and to propose relevant laws and policies to address determined by the appropriate agencies with the full
their role in national development; participation of the ICCs/IPs concerned shall be maintained,
c) To formulate and implement policies, plans, managed and developed for such purposes. The ICCs/IPs
programs and projects for the economic, social and concerned shall be given the responsibility to maintain,
cultural development of the ICCs/IPs and to monitor develop, protect and conserve such areas with the full and
the implementation thereof; effective assistance of the government agencies. Should the
ICCs/IPs decide to transfer the responsibility over the areas,
d) To request and engage the services and support said decision must be made in writing. The consent of the
of experts from other agencies of government or ICCs/IPs should be arrived at in accordance with its
employ private experts and consultants as may be customary laws without prejudice to the basic requirement of
required in the pursuit of its objectives; the existing laws on free and prior informed consent:
e) To issue certificate of ancestral land/domain title; Provided, That the transfer shall be temporary and will
ultimately revert to the ICCs/IPs in accordance with a
f) Subject to existing laws, to enter into contracts, program for technology transfer: Provided, further, That no
agreements, or arrangement, with government or ICCs/IPs shall be displaced or relocated for the purpose
private agencies or entities as may be necessary to enumerated under this section without the written consent of
attain the objectives of this Act, and subject to the the specific persons authorized to give consent.
approval of the President, to obtain loans from
government lending institutions and other lending
institutions to finance its programs;
g) To negotiate for funds and to accept grants, donations,
gifts and/or properties in whatever form and from whatever
source, local and international, subject to the approval of the
President of the Philippines, for the benefit of ICCs/IPs and
administer the same in accordance with the terms thereof; or
in the absence of any condition, in such manner consistent
with the interest of ICCs/IPs as well as existing laws;
h) To coordinate development programs and projects for the
advancement of the ICCs/IPs and to oversee the proper
implementation thereof;
i) To convene periodic conventions or assemblies of IPs to
review, assess as well as propose policies or plans;
j) To advise the President of the Philippines on all matters
relating to the ICCs/IPs and to submit within sixty (60) days
after the close of each calendar year, a report of its
operations and achievements;
k) To submit to Congress appropriate legislative proposals
intended to carry out the policies under this Act;
l) To prepare and submit the appropriate budget to the Office
of the President;
m) To issue appropriate certification as a pre-
condition to the grant of permit, lease, grant, or any
other similar authority for the disposition, utilization,
management and appropriation by any private
individual, corporate entity or any government
agency, corporation or subdivision thereof on any
part or portion of the ancestral domain taking into
consideration the consensus approval of the
ICCs/IPs concerned;