Today is Thursday, July 13, 2017

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

GET AND MANAGEMENT and CHAIRMAN and COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON IND
AMI MANSAYANGAN, BASILIO WANDAG, EVELYN DUNUAN, YAOM TUGAS, ALFREMO CARPIANO, LIBERA
NTONIO D. LUMANDONG, DATU MANTUMUKAW TEOFISTO SABASALES, DATU EDUAARDO BANDA, DATU
EN PENDAO CABIGON, BAI NANAPNAY-LIZA SAWAY, BAY INAY DAYA-MELINDA S. REYMUNDO, BAI TINA
OGGANG, TERESA GASPAR, MANUEL S. ONALAN, MIA GRACE L. GIRON, ROSEMARIE G. PE, BENITO CARI
GAN, VIRGILIO CAYETANO, CONCHITA G. DESCAGA, LEVY ESTEVES, ODETTE G. ESTEVEZ, RODOLFO C.
ULATAN, RAFFY MALINDA, ALFREDO ABILLANOS, JESSIE ANDILAB, MIRLANDO H. MANGKULINTAS, SA
WAY, JIMMY UGYUB, SALVADOR TIONGSON, VENANCIO APANG, MADION MALID, SUKIM MALID, NENEN
ON, SAMMY SALNUNGAN, ANTONIO D. EMBA, NORMA MAPANSAGONOS, ROMEO SALIGA, SR., JERSON P.
CEL MALID, represented by her father CORNELIO MALID, MARCELINO M. LADRA, represented by her father M
SR., SUSAN BOLANIO, OND, PULA BATO B'LAAN TRIBAL FARMER'S ASSOCIATION, INTER-PEOPLE'S EXC

ATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, INC., intervenor.

RESOLUTION

and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (R.A. 8371), otherwise known as t

respondents Chairperson and Commissioners of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the government agen
issed for lack of merit.
es (DENR) and Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) filed through the Solicitor General a consolidat
on be granted in part.

the IPRA, Mr. Ponciano Bennagen, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, and the leaders and members of 112 gro

nd/or to Appear as Amicus Curiae. The CHR asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of parens patriae and that the St

undation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, Inc. (Haribon, et al.), filed a motion to Intervene with attached Comment-in

ctive memoranda in which they reiterate the arguments adduced in their earlier pleadings and during the hearing.

Rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain as wel

h, in turn, defines ancestral lands;

e public lands, bodies of water, mineral and other resources found within ancestral domains are private but community property

and ancestral lands;

al domains;

l lands;

ion, development or exploration of minerals and other natural resources within the areas claimed to be their ancestral domains, a
s; and

nd conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves, wild

and "ancestral lands" which might even include private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) violate the rights of

e NCIP and making customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands on t

f ancestral domains and which vest on the NCIP the sole authority to delineate ancestral domains and ancestral lands;

area is an ancestral domain and upon notification to the following officials, namely, the Secretary of Environment and Natural R
terminates;

ous peoples shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims of ownership, hereditary succession and settlement of lan
e disputes involving indigenous peoples; and

nvolving rights of the indigenous peoples."5

r No. 1, series of 1998, which provides that "the administrative relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is charact
nts under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution.6

related provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional and invalid;

rs of the NCIP to cease and desist from implementing the assailed provisions of R.A. 8371 and its Implementing Rules;

Environment and Natural Resources to cease and desist from implementing Department of Environment and Natural Resources

gement to cease and desist from disbursing public funds for the implementation of the assailed provisions of R.A. 8371; and

and Natural Resources to comply with his duty of carrying out the States constitutional mandate to control and supervise the exp

d Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago join, sustaining the validity of the challenged provisions of R.A. 8371. Justice Pu
tions Implementing the IPRA, and Section 57 of the IPRA which he contends should be interpreted as dealing with the large-sca
ground that it does not raise a justiciable controversy and petitioners do not have standing to question the constitutionality of R.

opinion expressing the view that Sections 3 (a)(b), 5, 6, 7 (a)(b), 8, and related provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. He
IPRA. Justice Vitug also filed a separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutio

redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of

punan, Mendoza, and Panganiban.

d De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."

SEPARATE OPINION

Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life." Expounding on Nietzsche's essay, Judge Richard Posner1 wrote:2

ndent,' of the professions. It venerates tradition, precedent, pedigree, ritual, custom, ancient practices, ancient texts, archaic termi
d brashness of youth. These ingrained attitudes are obstacles to anyone who wants to re-orient law in a more pragmatic direction

into the Philippine legal system which appear to collide with settled constitutional and jural precepts on state ownership of land
IPRA by discovering its soul shrouded by the mist of our history. After all, the IPRA was enacted by Congress not only to fulfill
es and do not constitute part of the land of the public domain.

s a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to alienate the same.

ined in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

estral domains does not deprive the State of ownership over the natural resources, control and supervision in their development a

he parameters of Section 7(a) of the law on ownership of ancestral domains and is ultra vires.

he IPRA is allowed under Paragraph 3, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Consitution.

IPRA may be harmonized with Paragraphs 1 and 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

.
EM.

foundation for the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia. The "Regalian Doctrine" or jura regalia is
Title 12, Book 4 of the Novisima Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, set the policy of the Spanish Crown with respect to the Ph

heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is
ernors may seem necessary for public squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are peopled, taking into cons
they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose

h time as shall to them seem most expedient, a suitable period within which all possessors of tracts, farms, plantations, and estate
rescriptive right shall be protected, and all the rest shall be restored to us to be disposed of at our will."4

me the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown. The Spanish Government took charge of distributing the lands
t from the Crown.6

Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory claims. The law sought
ready amended by previous orders and decrees.8 This was the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines. It required t

e United States all rights, interests and claims over the national territory of the Philippine Islands. In 1903, the United States colo

on or paper title. Plaintiffs had entered into peaceful occupation of the subject land in 1860. Defendant's predecessor-in-interest,
g to the administrative sale. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment, asserting that their 30-year adverse possession, as an extraordinary

ich from earliest time have regulated the disposition of the public lands in the colonies."10 The question posed by the Court was:

the Philippines. However, it was understood that in the absence of any special law to govern a specific colony, the Laws of the In
trictly the Laws of the Indies, the Ordenanza of the Intendentes of 1786, and the Royal Cedula of 1754.11

urt interpreted it as follows:

Crown which have not been granted by Philip, or in his name, or by the kings who preceded him. This statement excludes the i
d been in the adverse occupation of them. By the mandatory part of the law all the occupants of the public lands are required to p
that it was not the intention of the law that mere possession for a length of time should make the possessors the owners of the lan

he kings who preceded him, belonged to the Crown.13 For those lands granted by the king, the decree provided for a system of a
 cipal subdelegate to issue a general order directing the publication of the Crown's instructions:

ation and publication of said order, shall have occupied royal lands, whether or not x x x cultivated or tenanted, may x x x appea
present their title deeds within the term designated, without a just and valid reason therefor, they will be deprived of and evicted

by private individuals in the Philippine Islands. Valenton construed these regulations together with contemporaneous legislative
ctrine, the Court stated:

or a sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof before the proper administrative offic

lands by which the plaintiffs could obtain the ownership of these lands by prescription, without any action by the State."17 Valen
Valenton upheld the Spanish concept of state ownership of public land.

rom earliest times, requiring settlers on the public lands to obtain title deeds therefor from the State, has been continued

ne Bill of 1902. The law governed the disposition of lands of the public domain. It prescribed rules and regulations for the homes
nds. It also provided for the "issuance of patents to certain native settlers upon public lands," for the establishment of town sites a
d on the assumption that title to public lands in the Philippine Islands remained in the government;19 and that the government's t
remained in the government and are thrown open to private appropriation and settlement,21 and excluded the patrimonial propert

passed under the Jones Law. It was more comprehensive in scope but limited the exploitation of agricultural lands to Filipinos a
Commonwealth Act No. 141 remains the present Public Land Law and it is essentially the same as Act 2874. The main differenc

or the Land Registration Law of 1903. Enacted by the Philippine Commission, Act 496 placed all public and private lands in t
re of the Torrens system of registration formulated by Sir Robert Torrens who patterned it after the Merchant Shipping Acts in S
uch liens and encumbrances as thereon noted or the law warrants or reserves.26 The certificate of title is indefeasible and impresc

ectives of the 1935 Constitutional Convention was the nationalization and conservation of the natural resources of the country.28
natural resources was seen as a necessary starting point to secure recognition of the state's power to control their disposition, exp
rds, however, they were not certain whether it was continued and applied by the Americans. To remove all doubts, the Conventi

l Resources," reads as follows:

, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong t
pital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inaugur
or the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-fiv
he grant."

conomy and the Patrimony of the Nation," to wit:

 , all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With
for the exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period
wer, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant."

onomy and Patrimony," to wit:

s, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are own
he full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into co-prod
ments may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms
asure and limit of the grant.

whether on public or private land, belong to the State. It is this concept of State ownership that petitioners claim is being vio

II. THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT.

ous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples, Creating a National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Establishing Implemen

CCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in Philippine society. It grants these people the ownership and possession of their ancestral dom
tive title.

subject to customary laws and traditions of the community concerned;

nsfer, if the transfer is to a non-member of the ICC/IP and is tainted by vitiated consent of the ICC/IP, or if the transfer is for an u

ce and empowerment,34 social justice and human rights,35 the right to preserve and protect their culture, traditions, institutions an

(NCIP). The NCIP is an independent agency under the Office of the President and is composed of seven (7) Commissioners bel
 s; Northern and Western Mindanao; Southern and Eastern Mindanao; and Central Mindanao.37 The NCIP took over the function
ructure.38

unresolved, the matter may be brought to the NCIP, which is granted quasi-judicial powers.39 The NCIP's decisions may be appe

d/or unlawful intrusion upon ancestral lands and domains shall be punished in accordance with customary laws or imprisoned fr

s (ICCs) or the Indigenous Peoples (IPs). The term "ICCs" is used in the 1987 Constitution while that of "IPs" is the contempora

mogeneous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community
ustoms, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of
ount of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of
have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains."

neous societies who have continuously lived as an organized community on communally bounded and defined territory. T
ther distinctive cultural traits, or, they, by their resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous
who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions but who may have been displaced from the

1. Indigenous Peoples: Their History

indoro, Negros, Samar, Leyte, and the Palawan and Sulu group of islands. They are composed of 110 tribes and are as follows:

g, Ifugao, Kalinga, Yapayao, Aeta or Agta or Pugot, and Bago of Ilocos Norte and Pangasinan; Ibanag of Isabela, Cagayan; Ilong

langan or Mangyan, Batangan, Buid or Buhid, Hanunuo and Iraya of Oriental and Occidental Mindoro; Tadyawan of Occidenta

nd Kabihug of Camarines Norte; Agta, and Mayon of Camarines Sur; Itom of Albay, Cimaron of Sorsogon; and the Pullon of Ma

Negros Occidental; the Corolano and Sulod.

Sur; the Kalibugan of Basilan, the Samal, Subanon and Yakat.

kidnon, Matigsalog, Talaanding of Bukidnon; the Camiguin of Camiguin Island; the Higa-unon of Agusan del Norte, Agusan de
of Agusan and Bukidnon.
ibabaon, Mansaka of Davao del Norte; B'laan, Kalagan, Langilad, T'boli and Talaingod of Davao del Sur; Mamamanua of Surig
Del Sur; Tagakaolo, Tasaday and Ubo of South Cotabato; and Bagobo of Davao del sur and South Cotabato.

nd Iranon.43

30,000 B.C.

s, Indonesians and Malays.44 The strains from these groups eventually gave rise to common cultural features which became the d
nomic and socio-cultural influences came by way of Chinese porcelain, silk and traders. Indian influence found their way into th

tary activities as reliance on them was reduced by fishing and the cultivation of the soil.46 From the hinterland, coastal, and river
fluenced by, and responded to, common ecology. The generally benign tropical climate and the largely uniform flora and fauna f

ges that traced their origin to the Austronesian parent-stock and used them not only as media of daily communication but also as
ligion and religious beliefs. They believed in the immortality of the soul and life after death. Their rituals were based on beliefs i
nd birds, for they seemed to consider the objects of Nature as something to be respected. They venerated almost any object that w

alangay," meaning, a boat, which transported them to these shores.52 The barangay was basically a family-based community and
nd interests. A chieftain had wide powers for he exercised all the functions of government. He was the executive, legislator and

ation to generation and constituted the bulk of the laws of the barangay. They were preserved in songs and chants and in the
aws was the Maragtas Code by Datu Sumakwel at about 1250 A.D. Other old codes are the Muslim Code of Luwaran and the P
s and adoption. Whenever disputes arose, these were decided peacefully through a court composed by the chieftain as "judge" a
57

hiefs merely administered the lands in the name of the barangay. The social order was an extension of the family with chiefs emb
This ancient communalism was practiced in accordance with the concept of mutual sharing of resources so that no individual, reg
ishing grounds were likewise free to all. Coastal communities depended for their economic welfare on the kind of fishing sharin
t their rights, related to either land and sea, were subject to their responsibility to protect the communities from danger and to pr

ultanate of Sulu was established and claimed jurisdiction over territorial areas represented today by Tawi-tawi, Sulu, Palawan, B
Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur.63

n but was private in use. This is clearly indicated in the Muslim Code of Luwaran. The Code contains a provision on the lease o

t production was geared to the use of the producers and to the fulfillment of kinship obligations. They were not economies geare
separate communities.66

ing in barangay settlements scattered along water routes and river banks. One of the first tasks imposed on the missionarie
paniards regarded it a sacred "duty to conscience and humanity to civilize these less fortunate people living in the obscurity of ig

constructed. All the new Christian converts were required to construct their houses around the church and the unbaptized were in
The reduccion, to the Spaniards, was a "civilizing" device to make the Filipinos law-abiding citizens of the Spanish Crown, and
 assigned to them and the pueblos, were now declared to be crown lands or realengas, belonging to the Spanish king. It w

public domain were the most immediate fundamental results of Spanish colonial theory and law. 73 The concept that the S

e Filipinos according to their religious practices and beliefs, and divided them into three types . First were the Indios, the Christi

nd was allowed certain status although below the Spaniards. The Moros and infieles were regarded as the lowest classes.76

ila and the Visayas to Mindanao; while the infieles, to the hinterlands. The Spaniards did not pursue them into the deep interio
ative security.77 Thus, the infieles, which were peripheral to colonial administration, were not only able to preserve their own cu
and vibrant.

spicion, fear, and hostility between the Christians on the one hand and the non-Christians on the other. Colonialism tended to div

ed the existence of the infieles:

urse followed by Congress in permitting the tribes of our North American Indians to maintain their tribal organization a
should, however, be subjected to wise and firm regulation; and, without undue or petty interference, constant and active effort s

he American government chose "to adopt the latter measure as one more in accord with humanity and with the national conscien

lipinos. The term "non-Christian" referred not to religious belief, but to a geographical area, and more directly, "to natives of the

o. 253 creating the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes (BNCT). Under the Department of the Interior, the BNCT's primary task w
dvancement in civilization and prosperity." The BNCT was modeled after the bureau dealing with American Indians. The ag

e then was the conservation of the national patrimony for the Filipinos.

mplete manner the economic, social, moral and political advancement of the non-Christian Filipinos or national cultural minoriti
." The law called for a policy of integration of indigenous peoples into the Philippine mainstream and for this purpose created t
he colonial policy of assimilation understood in the context of a guardian-ward relationship.85

Americans, government attempts at integration met with fierce resistance. Since World War II, a tidal wave of Christian sett
in the titling of several ancestral lands in the settlers' names. With government initiative and participation, this titling d

es in the formulation and implementation of State policies."88

were addressed by the highest law of the Republic, and they were referred to as "cultural communities." More important
ate policies. President Marcos abolished the CNI and transferred its functions to the Presidential Adviser on National Minori
reserve their original lifeways beside the larger community."89 In short, while still adopting the integration policy, the decree

cree. The decree provided for the issuance of land occupancy certificates to members of the national cultural communities who w
solution of land problems involving small settlers, landowners, and tribal Filipinos.92

ontoks of the Cordillera region were displaced by the Chico River dam project of the National Power Corporation (NPC). The M
take approximately 40,550 hectares of land that later became the NDC-Guthrie plantation in Agusan del Sur. Most of the land w
enous peoples from their land but also to the reduction and destruction of their natural environment.94

ion. Invoking her powers under the Freedom Constitution, President Aquino created the Office of Muslim Affairs, Office for N

s to preserve their way of life.96 This Constitution goes further than the 1973 Constitution by expressly guaranteeing the
a culture distinctly their own.

2. Their Concept of Land

are non-Christians. They live in less accessible, marginal, mostly upland areas. They have a system of self-government not depe
e kind of response the indigenous peoples chose to deal with colonial threat worked well to their advantage by making it difficul
much older base of archipelagic culture. The political systems were still structured on the patriarchal and kinship oriented arrange
on of functions, not status, was maintained. The cultural styles and forms of life portraying the varieties of social courtesies and

f permanent, individual, land ownership. Among the Igorots, ownership of land more accurately applies to the tribal right to use
he beings of the spirit world who are its true and primary owners. Under the concept of "trusteeship," the right to possess the lan

spirits, and that those who work the land are its mere stewards.100 Customary law has a strong preference for communal own
ood or marriage. The system of communal ownership under customary laws draws its meaning from the subsistence and highly c
t areas, swidden farms, orchards, pasture and burial grounds should be communally-owned.102 For the Kalingas, everybody has a

l ownership. The residential lots and terrace rice farms are governed by a limited system of individual ownership. It is limited
ga customary law, the alienation of individually-owned land is strongly discouraged except in marriage and succession and excep
it, and in no case may land be sold to a non-member of the ili.105

ndividual land ownership under the civil law is alien to them. Inherently colonial in origin, our national land laws and go

III. THE IPRA IS A NOVEL PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

A. The Legislative History of the IPRA

ongress of the Philippines, by their joint efforts, passed and approved R.A. No. 8371, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA

our proposed measures referred to the Committees on Cultural Communities, Environment and Natural Resources, Ways and M
h indigenous peoples nationwide.108 At the Second Regular Session of the Tenth Congress, Senator Flavier, in his sponsorship

minance and neglect of government controlled by the majority. Massive migration of their Christian brothers to their homeland s
rces by the elite among the migrant population, they became marginalized. And the government has been an indispensable party
wealth and early years of the Philippine Republic. Pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine first introduced to our system by Spain throu
teaders within the traditional areas of the ICCs."109

ng before any central government was established. Their ancestors had territories over which they ruled themselves and related w
genous peoples is manifested in their own lives through political, economic, socio-cultural and spiritual practices. The IPs cultur

g on it. Otherwise, IPs shall cease to exist as distinct peoples."110

n two postulates: (1) the concept of native title; and (2) the principle of parens patriae.

ed in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution," our "decisional laws" and jurisprudence passed by the State have "made e

munities as one of private ownership, which, in legal concept, is termed "native title." This ruling has not been overturned. In fa

D. 1529, R.A. 6734 (the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao). These laws, explicitly or implicitly, an

the policy. In fact, it was more honored in its breach than in its observance, its wanton disregard shown during the period unto th

nd. The bill was prepared also under the principle of parens patriae inherent in the supreme power of the State and deeply embed
nsaction with others, are entitled to the protection of the State.

and none against, with no abstention.112

munities. It was originally authored and subsequently presented and defended on the floor by Rep. Gregorio Andolana of North

romote, recognize the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development.

hat these rights shall be well-preserved and the cultural traditions as well as the indigenous laws that remained long before this R
the hope and the dreams of more than 12 million Filipinos that they be considered in the mainstream of the Philippine society a

Constitution. He also emphasized that the rights of IPs to their land was enunciated in Cario v. Insular Government which rec

pproved on Second Reading with no objections.

 IV. THE PROVISIONS OF THE IPRA DO NOT CONTRAVENE THE CONSTITUTION.

d Do Not Constitute Part of the Land of the Public Domain.

al lands. Ancestral lands are not the same as ancestral domains. These are defined in Section 3 [a] and [b] of the Indigenous Peop

o ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occup
r displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into b
ricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, w
ence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators;

individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predec
a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corpora

possessed by ICCs/IPs by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuou
rnment and/or private individuals or corporations. Ancestral domains comprise lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natu
worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources. They also include lands which may no longer be exclu
ng cultivators.116

pt that these are limited to lands and that these lands are not merely occupied and possessed but are also utilized by the ICCs/IPs

Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2, series of 1993, signed by then Secretary of the Department of Environment and
ALC's) and Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADC's) to IPs.

PRA on the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).119 The guiding principle in identification and delineation is sel

nd 52 of the IPRA. The identification, delineation and certification of ancestral lands is in Section 53 of said law.

y the NCIP that the application is meritorious, the NCIP shall issue a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) in the name
ide in accordance with customs and traditions.123 With respect to ancestral lands outside the ancestral domain, the NCIP issue

eeds in the place where the property is situated.125

(1) Right to Ancestral Domains and Ancestral Lands: How Acquired

des: (1) by native title over both ancestral lands and domains; or (2) by torrens title under the Public Land Act and the La

(2) The Concept of Native Title

mory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indispu
 ownership as far back as memory reaches. These lands are deemed never to have been public lands and are indisputably presum
nd respected.127 Formal recognition, when solicited by ICCs/IPs concerned, shall be embodied in a Certificate of Ancestral Doma

wever, is a right of private ownership peculiarly granted to ICCs/IPs over their ancestral lands and domains. The IPRA categorica
ublic lands and are private.

(a) Cario v. Insular Government129

ent.130 Cario firmly established a concept of private land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State.

of land in Baguio Municipality, Benguet Province. He claimed that this land had been possessed and occupied by his ancestors
rot custom. He tried to have the land adjusted under the Spanish land laws, but no document issued from the Spanish Crown.131
n the land prompting him to seek a Torrens title to his property in the land registration court. While his petition was pending, a U
off the land.134

oth the Government of the Philippine Islands and the U.S. Government appealed to the C.F.I. of Benguet which reversed the lan
e hand, the Philippine government invoked the Regalian doctrine and contended that Cario failed to comply with the provision
, and that the land never formed part of the public domain.

eld from the Crown, and perhaps the general attitude of conquering nations toward people not recognized as entitled to the treatm
Spain asserted, absolute power. But it does not follow that, as against the inhabitants of the Philippines, the United States asserts
ects to the head in the past, and how far it shall recognize actual facts, are matters for it to decide."137

w colonizer. Ultimately, the matter had to be decided under U.S. law.

" as well as the pronounced policy "to do justice to the natives."138 It was based on the strong mandate extended to the Islands vi
protection of the laws." The court declared:

Whatever consideration may have been shown to the North American Indians, the dominant purpose of the whites in America w
our first object in the internal administration of the islands is to do justice to the natives, not to exploit their country for private g
nhabitants thereof.' It is reasonable to suppose that the attitude thus assumed by the United States with regard to what was unque
e safeguards to all. It provides that 'no law shall be enacted in said islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or prop
tates was ready to declare in the next breath that "any person" did not embrace the inhabitants of Benguet, or that it meant by "p
nd by long association,- of the profoundest factors in human thought,- regarded as their own."139

erhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by ind
ke this, if there is doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt."140

ory went, and (2) under a claim of private ownership. Land held by this title is presumed to "never have been public land."

decision of Valenton v. Murciano. The U.S. Supreme Court found no proof that the Spanish decrees did not honor native title. O
 opilacion was all "theory and discourse" and it was observed that titles were admitted to exist beyond the powers of the Crown,

at it was bad by that law as to satisfy us that he does not own the land. To begin with, the older decrees and laws cited by
ssume to convert all the native inhabitants of the Philippines into trespassers or even into tenants at will. For instance, Book 4, ti
er, to call for the exhibition of grants, directs them to confirm those who hold by good grants or justa prescripcion. It is true tha
tted to exist that owed nothing to the powers of Spain beyond this recognition in their books." (Emphasis supplied).141

d territories. The wording of the Spanish laws were not framed in a manner as to convey to the natives that failure to register wh
Igorot chief the notion that ancient family possessions were in danger, if he had read every word of it."

enough, however, to admit the possibility that the applicant might have been deprived of his land under Spanish law because of t
the Constitution, the court validated this kind of title.142 This title was sufficient, even without government administrative ac

out difficulties for courts of a legal tradition. We have deemed it proper on that account to notice the possible effect of the chang
hat the applicant should be granted what he seeks, and should not be deprived of what, by the practice and belief of those among

guio Municipality in his name.144

"native title." It simply said:

characterized as a savage tribe that never was brought under the civil or military government of the Spanish Crown. It s
and which would have made his title beyond question good. Whatever may have been the technical position of Spain it does
l of native titles through an important part of the Island of Luzon, at least, for the want of ceremonies which the Spaniards woul

Cario decision. It is observed that the widespread use of the term "native title" may be traced to Professor Owen James Lynch, J
e Title, Private Right and Tribal Land Law.146 This article was made after Professor Lynch visited over thirty tribal communitie
d upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in said case.

y Justice Holmes in Cario "is conceptually similar to "aboriginal title" of the American Indians.148 This is not surprising, accor
n the case of Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro.150

o remove the Mangyans from their domains and place them in a permanent reservation in Sitio Tigbao, Lake Naujan. Any Mang
n of liberty under the Board Resolution. This Court denied the petition on the ground of police power. It upheld government pol
ic forests in which they roamed.151 Speaking through Justice Malcolm, the court said:

United States for the Indian Tribes. The methods followed by the Government of the Philippine Islands in its dealings with the so
an be derived by an investigation of the American-Indian policy.

of pupilage." The recognized relation between the Government of the United States and the Indians may be described as that of
 . But even admitting similarity of facts, yet it is known to all that Indian reservations do exist in the United States, that Indians h
remain on the reservation for their own good and for the general good of the country. If any lesson can be drawn from the India
erfere to upset a carefully planned governmental system. Perhaps, just as many forceful reasons exist for the segregation of the M

on is a part of the public domain set apart by proper authority for the use and occupation of a tribe or tribes of Indians.154 It may

boriginal right of possession or occupancy."156 The aboriginal right of possession depends on the actual occupancy of the lands
part from any treaty, statute, or other governmental action, although in numerous instances treaties have been negotiated with In

held and occupied before the "discovery" of the Americas by the Europeans. The earliest definitive statement by the U.S

o (2) Indian tribes. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to recognize this conveyance, the plaintiffs being private persons. The only
orld believed that they had made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new world by bestowing civilization and Christia
nt by whose subjects, or by whose authority, the discovery was made, against all other European governments, which tit
ements upon it. As regards the natives, the court further stated that:

hemselves. The rights thus acquired being exclusive, no other power could interpose between them.

irely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants o
rily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the fundame

rted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves; and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a
." 161

ian land and extinguish Indian titles. Only to the discoverer- whether to England, France, Spain or Holland- did this right belong
ight, the concerned Indians were recognized as the "rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain poss
rer purchased the land from the Indians or conquered them, it was only then that the discoverer gained an absolute title unrestrict

mount to the title of the United States itself to other parties, saying:

s never been questioned. The claim of government extends to the complete ultimate title, charged with this right of posses

al recognition of this principle.163

ving to invalidate conveyances made by the government to many U.S. citizens.164

ted a law requiring all white persons residing within the Cherokee nation to obtain a license or permit from the Governor of Geo

hed between the United States and the Cherokee nation as well as the Acts of Congress regulating intercourse with them. It chara

he supply of their essential wants, and for their protection from lawless and injurious intrusions into their country. That power w
 e United States in its place, led naturally to the declaration, on the part of the Cherokees, that they were under the protection of t

at of individuals abandoning their national character, and submitting as subjects to the laws of a master."166

aries and recognize their right of occupancy over all the lands within their domains. Thus:

urse with the Indians; which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford that protection whic
ies, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not onl

, retaining their original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil from time immemorial, with the single ex
s a restriction which those European potentates imposed on themselves, as well as on the Indians. The very term "nation," so gen

urately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter but w
d laws, vested in the government of the United States."168

other European governments. Designated as the naked fee,169 this title was to be consummated by possession and was subject to
netheless asserted the exclusive right to acquire the Indians' land- either by purchase, "defensive" conquest, or cession- and in so
of the natives as occupants, they all asserted the ultimate dominion and title to be in themselves.170

upied by the Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign- first the discovering European nation an
n right of occupancy, sometimes called Indian title, which it accorded the protection of complete ownership.171 But this aborigina
occupancy based upon aboriginal possession is not a property right.173 It is vulnerable to affirmative action by the federal govern
ontinuous use and occupancy for a long time.175 It entails that land owned by Indian title must be used within the tribe, subject to
the right of individual Indians to share in the tribal property usually depends upon tribal membership, the property of the tribe ge

ate such lands as are subject to sale or other disposal under general laws.178 Indian land which has been abandoned is deemed to
servation ceases to be public land, and until the Indian title is extinguished, no one but Congress can initiate any preferential righ

digenous Americans. 182 And two things are clear. First, aboriginal title is recognized. Second, indigenous property systems are
e, however, there are at present some misgivings on whether jurisprudence on American Indians may be cited authoritatively in t
le of ownership is not specifically recognized as ownership by action authorized by Congress.184 The protection of aboriginal tit
6
the power of the State to extinguish these titles has remained firmly entrenched.187

ains and ancestral lands.188 The IPRA, however, is still in its infancy and any similarities between its application in the Philippin

ownership, albeit in limited form, of the land to the ICCs/IPs. Native title presumes that the land is private and was never public
ns and lands. Cario was cited by the succeeding cases to support the concept of acquisitive prescription under the Public
Public Land Act are complied with, the possessor of the land is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant o
 lands that were not acquired from the government, either by purchase or grant, belong to the public domain has an exception. Th
esumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been private property even before the Spanish con

dverse possession in the concept of owner of public agricultural land. It is this long, continuous, open and adverse possession in
rens certificate of title.

vate.

ed by the option given to individual ICCs/IPs over their individually-owned ancestral lands. For purposes of registration unde
ation is that ancestral land is private. It, however, has to be first converted to public agricultural land simply for registration

nd Registration Act 496- Individual members of cultural communities, with respect to their individually-owned ancestral lands w
n thirty (30) years immediately preceding the approval of this Act and uncontested by the members of the same ICCs/IPs shall h

ually used for agricultural, residential, pasture, and tree farming purposes, including those with a slope of eighteen percent (18%

f this Act."196

estral lands. This option is limited to ancestral lands only, not domains, and such lands must be individually, not communally, o

heir predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuous possession and occupation of the same in the concept of owner since time
nd Act, or Act 496, the Land Registration Act. For purposes of registration, the individually-owned ancestral lands are classified
se lands shall be classified as public agricultural lands regardless of whether they have a slope of 18% or more.

of the Public Land Act and the Land Registration Act. C.A. 141, the Public Land Act, deals specifically with lands of the public
ent, nor in any manner become private property, nor those on which a private right authorized and recognized by this Act or any
. Since ancestral domains and lands are private, if the ICC/IP wants to avail of the benefits of C.A. 141 and Act 496, the I

a limited period. This option must be exercised within twenty (20) years from October 29, 1997, the date of approval of the IPR

ey are private and belong to the ICCs/IPs. Section 3 of Article XII on National Economy and Patrimony of the 1987 Constitu
and ancestral domains but it does not classify them under any of the said four categories. To classify them as public lands und
roblem of the ICCs/IPs which is loss of land. Land and space are of vital concern in terms of sheer survival of the ICCs/IPs.201

nities to their ancestral lands" and that "Congress provide for the applicability of customary laws x x x in determining th
ional mandate.

d form of ownership and does not include the right to alienate the same.

hip under the civil law. This ownership is based on adverse possession for a specified period, and harkens to Section 44 of the Pu
Thus:

hectares and who since July fourth, 1926 or prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through
hall be entitled, under the provisions of this chapter, to have a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of such land not to

her by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of land, whether disposable or not since July 4, 1
ured or disposable under the provision of the Public Land Law.203

r claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the

pen, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled t

eir predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of
ction (b) hereof."204

land but because of adverse possession since July 4, 1955 (free patent) or at least thirty years (judicial confirmation), the land ha
stratively after which a torrens title is issued.

of ownership under the civil law. The Civil Code of the Philippines defines ownership in Articles 427, 428 and 429. This concep
the right of the owner to enjoy and dispose of the thing owned. And the right to enjoy and dispose of the thing includes the righ
e possession of the thing owned by any other person to whom the owner has not transmitted such thing.208

ertificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). The CADT formally recognizes the indigenous concept of ownership of the ICCs

ncestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity. The indigenous conce
wise covers sustainable traditional resource rights."

the indigenous concept of ownership. This concept maintains the view that ancestral domains are the ICCs/IPs private b
not by one particular person. The IPRA itself provides that areas within the ancestral domains, whether delineated or not, are p
d partition of the property held in common. The Civil Code expressly provides that "no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in t
not only of customary law of the community but of the very community itself.212

corporate condominium rights. A corporation can exist only for a maximum of fifty (50) years subject to an extension of anoth

s to all generations of the ICCs/IPs, past, present and future, to the domain. This is the reason why the ancestral domain mu

al. These lands, however, may be transferred subject to the following limitations: (a) only to the members of the same ICCs/IPs;
 mining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains,"216 the IPRA, by legislative fiat, introduces a new concept of ownersh

rce of law.218 Some articles of the Civil Code expressly provide that custom should be applied in cases where no codal provision

o ICCs/IPs. Its recognition does not depend on the absence of a specific provision in the civil law. The indigenous concept o

merely a "formal recognition" of native title. This is clear from Section 11 of the IPRA, to wit:

by virtue of Native Title shall be recognized and respected. Formal recognition, when solicited by ICCs/IPs concerned shall be

ng people of the land- by sheer force of having sprung from the land since time beyond recall, and the faithful nurture of the land
d; from man, care for land; from the land, sustenance for man.222

Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

n 7 provides for the rights over ancestral domains:

ncestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights include:

aditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improveme

e right to develop, control and use lands and territories traditionally occupied, owned, or used; to manage and conserve n
urces found therein; the right to negotiate the terms and conditions for the exploration of natural resources in the areas
ntelligent participation in the formulation and implementation of any project, government or private, that will affect or impact up
t to prevent any interference with, alienation and encroachment upon these rights;"

ved therefrom. No ICCs/IPs will be relocated without their free and prior informed consent, nor through any means other than e

atastrophes, the State shall endeavor to resettle the displaced ICCs/IPs in suitable areas where they can have temporary life supp

lers and organizations into their domains;

cess to integrated systems for the management of their inland waters and air space;

ains which have been reserved for various purposes, except those reserved and intended for common and public welfare and ser

mary laws of the area where the land is located, and only in default thereof shall the complaints be submitted to amicable settlem

ncestral lands shall be recognized and protected.

 r property rights to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs, subject to customary laws and traditions of the community concerned

ights by virtue of any agreement or devise, to a non-member of the concerned ICCs/IPs is tainted by the vitiated consent of the I
m the date of transfer."

s (a) lands, (b) bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by the ICCs/IPs, (c) sacred places, (d) traditional hunting and f
he right to stay in the territories; (c) the right to resettlement in case of displacement; (d) the right to regulate the entry of migran

on 8 gives the ICCs/IPs also the right to transfer the land or property rights to members of the same ICCs/IPs or non-members th

oes Not Deprive the State of Ownership Over the Natural Resources and Control and Supervision in their Development and Expl

in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, viz:

s, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are own
full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or, it may enter into co-produ
ments may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms
icial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

ive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral
the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

on, within thirty days from its execution."223

ther mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources-
ake the same in four (4) modes:

ents with Filipino citizens or qualified corporations;

citizens;

and other mineral oils, the President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financia

he exploration, development and utilization of these natural resources. The State may directly undertake the exploitation and
ars, renewable for another 25 years. The State, through Congress, may allow the small-scale utilization of natural resources by F
nce agreements with foreign-owned corporations.

991 (R.A. 7076) the three types of agreements, i.e., co-production, joint venture or production-sharing, may apply to both large-
mining equipment."229

e natural resources within their ancestral domains. The right of ICCs/IPs in their ancestral domains includes ownership, but

and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them

tually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them at any t
fish in the traditional fishing grounds, forests or timber in the sacred places, etc. and all other natural resources found within the
or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna and all other natural resources" enumerated in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Co

with the Regalian doctrine.

7 (a) of the IPRA And is Unconstitutional.

esources and all improvements made by them at any time within the ancestral domains/ lands. These rights shall include, but not
he right to recover shall be particularly applied to lands lost through fraud or any form or vitiated consent or transferred for an un

natural resources." The term "natural resources" is not one of those expressly mentioned in Section 7 (a) of the law. Our Constitu
d.231 The IPRA itself makes a distinction between land and natural resources. Section 7 (a) speaks of the right of ownersh
Cs/IPs the right of ownership over these resources.

d categorically challenged by petitioners. Petitioners actually assail the constitutionality of the Implementing Rules in general.23
s beyond the parameters of Section 7 (b) of the law and is contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

r Paragraph 3, Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution.

the ICCs/IPs the right to manage them, viz:

velop, control and use lands and territories traditionally occupied, owned, or used; to manage and conserve natural resources wit
e terms and conditions for the exploration of natural resources in the areas for the purpose of ensuring ecological, environmental
ment or private, that will affect or impact upon the ancestral domains and to receive just and fair compensation for any damages w

following rights:

d the responsibilities for future generations;

tural resources found therein;

es for the purpose of ensuring ecological, environmental protection and the conservation measures, pursuant to national and cust

entation of any project, government or private, that will affect or impact upon the ancestral domains and to receive just and fair c
alienation and encroachment upon these rights.233

ICCs/IPs are merely granted the right to "manage and conserve" them for future generations, "benefit and share" the p
vation measures." It must be noted that the right to negotiate the terms and conditions over the natural resources covers only the
pment of natural resources.

stewardship. For the ICCs/IPs may use these resources and share in the profits of their utilization or negotiate the terms for the
ces must not harm the ecology and environment pursuant to national and customary laws.234

all-scale utilization of natural resources as distinguished from large-scale. Small-scale utilization of natural resources is ex
uated who exploit our natural resources for their daily sustenance and survival."235 Section 7 (b) also expressly mandates the ICC

er Paragraphs 1 and 4, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

he harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains. A non-membe
wenty-five (25) years: Provided, That a formal and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the com
hts of the ICCs/IPs under the same contract."

within ancestral domains" and "gives the ICCs/IPs 'priority rights' therein." The terms "harvesting, extraction, development o
e that require technology other than manual labor.236 The law recognizes the probability of requiring a non-member of the ICCs/
ne on condition that a formal written agreement be entered into by the non-member and members of the ICCs/IPs.

ources. Instead, the law only grants the ICCs/IPs "priority rights" in the development or exploitation thereof. Priority means giv
sources and this entity has the power to grant preferential rights over the resources to whosoever itself chooses.

ne that all natural resources found within the ancestral domains belong to the State. It incorporates by implication the Regalian d
n 57 of IPRA, the State, as owner of these natural resources, may directly undertake the development and exploitation of
production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreement with them. The State may likewise enter into any of said agr
or the large-scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils, or allow such
hall ensure that the rights of the ICCs/IPs under the agreement shall be protected. The agreement shall be for a period of 25 year

as owner of these resources, has four (4) options: (1) it may, of and by itself, directly undertake the development and exploitatio
with a non-member of the ICCs/IPs, whether natural or juridical, local or foreign; or (4) it may allow such non-member to parti

omains merely gives the ICCs/IPs, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the
rity to the ICCs/IPs. The State has several options and it is within its discretion to choose which option to pursue. Moreov
vour always under State supervision or control. This indicates that the State does not lose control and ownership over the resour
zed these resources for their subsistence and survival.

sion:

ceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing, renewing or granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into any production-s
conducted by the Ancestral Domains Office of the area concerned: Provided, That no certification shall be issued by the NCIP w
 new concession, license, lease, or production sharing agreement while there is a pending application for a CADT: Provided, fina

es shall not be issued, renewed or granted by all departments and government agencies without prior certification from the NCIP
ree and prior informed written consent of the ICCs/IPs obtained. Non-compliance with the consultation requirement gives the IC

icense or agreement over natural resources, that a certification be issued by the NCIP that the area subject of the agreement does
ement. It merely gives the NCIP the authority to ensure that the ICCs/IPs have been informed of the agreement and that their co
said domains, Sections 7(b) and 57 of the IPRA apply.

NOUS INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT.

prehistoric times. The movement received a massive impetus during the 1960's from two sources. First, the decolonization of As
e rise of the civil rights movement and anti-racism brought to the attention of North American Indians, Aborigines in Australia,

igenous affairs were on the international agenda. The people of the Philippine Cordillera were the first Asians to take part in the
ecome one of the best-organized indigenous bodies in the world.240

result of the increased publicity focused on the continuing disrespect for indigenous human rights and the destruction of the indi
nd have become a part of today's priorities for the international agenda.242

pecific rules concerning IPs in some nations. The World Bank, for example, first adopted a policy on IPs as a result of the dismal
f the Asian Development Bank.244

te policy the promotion of their rights within the framework of national unity and development.245 The IPRA amalgamates the P
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.247

dependent Countries"248 and was adopted on June 27, 1989. It is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Intern
O Convention No. 169 revised the "Convention Concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Se
enous peoples "with a view to removing the assimilationist orientation of the earlier standards," and recognizing the aspirations o

fferences. These differences were carried over and magnified by the Philippine government through the imposition of a national
The histories and cultures of the indigenes are relevant to the evolution of Philippine culture and are vital to the understanding o
course of history. The Philippines became a democracy a centennial ago and the decolonization process still continues. If the ev
rt's duty to acknowledge the presence of indigenous and customary laws in the country and affirm their co-existence with the lan

hts Act of 1997.

ty of Chicago Law School.

ssed by the state expressed in the concept of sovereignty- Lee Hong Hok v. David, 48 SCRA 372, 377 [1972].

Philippine Torrens System, p. 13 [1964].

nown as repartimientos and encomiendas. Repartimientos were handouts to the military as fitting reward for their services to the
e, supra, p. 12, citing Benitez, History of the Philippines, pp. 125-126.

perty and secondarily a mortgage law- Ponce, supra, at 16.

at Crown holdings embraced both imperium and dominiumMa. Lourdes Aranal-Sereno and Roan Libarios, The Interface Betw

ao v. Insular Government, 7 Phil. 80 [1906]; and Cario v. Insular Government, 7 Phil. 132 [1906]; all decided by the Philippine

32.

, supra, at 32.
ne 27, 1989.

ns in cooperation with the ILO and Bilance-Asia Department, p. 4 [1999]hereinafter referred to as Guide to R.A. 8371.

es during the deliberations on H.B. No. 9125Interpellations of Aug. 20, 1997, pp. 00086-00095. "lost tribes" such as the Lutan

iew, generally linked to Professor Otley H. Beyer, suggests the "wave theory"a series of arrivals in the archipelago bringing in
in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. Their relatively inferior culture did not enable them to overcome the pressures from the secon
non, and Sama. The first group was pushed inland as the second occupied the coastal and downriver settlements. The last wave i
ed Filipinos who pushed the Indonesian groups inland and occupied much of the coastal, lowland and downstream areas.

ista, and Jesus Peralta. Jocano maintains that the Negritos, Indonesians and Malays stand co-equal as ethnic groups without any
land and lowland cultures or coastal and inland communities, suggests a random and unstructured advent of different kinds of gr
p. 33-34 [1997]; Teodoro A. Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People, p. 21 [1990].
998) Edition, vol. 1, p. 13, Aklahi foundation, Inc. [1989]. It was in 800-1,000 A.D. that the Ifugaos of Northern Luzon built the

o 1565, unpublished work submitted as entry to the Centennial Essay-Writing Contest sponsored by the National Centennial Com

ra Prior to 1565, unpublished work submitted as entry to the Centennial Essay-Writing Contest sponsored by the National Cent

n., Inc. and the Phil. National Historical Society, Inc., p. 43 [1997].

Philippine Torrens System, pp. 11-12 [1964]. In Philippine pre-colonial history, there was only one recorded transaction on the
e for the island was a gold salakot and a long gold necklace Agoncillo, supra, at 25.
toque de la campana" (Under the peal of the bell).

7.

ed States Supreme Court found that the Spanish decrees in the Philippines appeared to recognize that the natives owned some lan
1, infra.

Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660, 714 [1919]; also cited in People v. Cayat, supra, at 17-18.

nd Integration, Indigenous Peoples of Asia, p. 348, ed. by R.H. Barnes, A. Gray and B. Kingsburry, pub. by Association for Asia
Lynch, Jr., The Philippine Colonial Dichotomy: Attraction and Disenfranchisement, 63 P. L. J. 139-140 [1988].

Phil. 660, 694 [1919]

ction of hundreds of Ibaloi families Cerilo Rico S. Abelardo, Ancestral Domain Rights: Issues, Responses, and Recommendati
blicity, and impact projects. In Mindanao, the agency resorted to a policy of forced resettlement on reservations, militarization an

elease the decrees implementing rules and regulations- Abelardo, supra, at 120-121.

policies, plans, programs, and projects for tribal Filipinos, otherwise known as Indigenous Cultural Communities, taking into co
in the countrys development for national unity; xxx"

Article XIV, sec. 17; and Article XVI, sec. 12.

dillera, 29-30 [n.d.]; also cited in Dante B. Gatmaytan, Ancestral Domain Recognition in the Philippines: Trends in Jurisprudenc

, Indigenous Attitudes Toward Land and Natural Resources of Tribal Filipinos, 31 National Council of Churches in the Philippin

hed).

w and Kalinga Law, 58 P.L.J. 420, 440-441 [1983].

ored by Senators Alvarez, Magsaysay, Revilla, Mercado, Enrile, Honasan, Tatad, Maceda, Shahani, Osmena and Romulo.

to operationalize the mandate of the 1987 Constitution on indigenous peoples. The bill was reported out, sponsored an interpella

ongress, Second Regular Session, Senate, Oct. 16, 1996, pp. 15-16.
1997, pp. 86-87.

no, Abad, Cosalan, Aumentado, de la Cruz, Bautista, Singson, Damasing, Romualdo, Montilla, Germino, VercelesProceeding

p of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral domains identified and delineated in acordance with the IPRARule II [c], Rules & Regulati

ancestral lands- Rule II [d], Implementing Rules, NCIP A.O. No. 1.

ngress, Second Regular Session, Oct. 16, 1996, p. 13.

Owen J. Lynch, Jr., Invisible Peoples and a Hidden Agenda: The Origins of Contemporary Philippine Land Laws (1900-1913)
Manila. The note obliged Cario to sell the land at issue "as soon as he obtains from the Government of the United States, or its r

8-This artcile was one of those circulated among the Constitutional Commissioners in the formulation of Sec. 5, Article XII of th

ued not in the name of Cario who died on June 6, 1908, but to his lawyers John Hausserman and Charles Cohn and his attorney
Hay, Manila Times, p. 1, Jan. 12, 1998.

dissertation at the Yale Law School entitled "Invisible Peoples: A History of Philippine Land Law." Please see the Legal Bases o
chotomy: Attraction and Disenfranchisement, 63 P.L.J. 112; Invisible Peoples and a Hidden Agenda: The Origins of Contempor

in Autsralia- Maureen Tehan, Customary Title, Heritage Protection, and Property Rights in Australia: Emerging Patterns of Lan
 (b) those created by acts of Congress since 1871; and (c) those made by Executive Orders where the President has set apart publ
S. Ct. 631, 315 U.S. 790, 86 L. Ed. 1194, affirmed 62 S. Ct. 1095, 316 U.S. 317, 86 L. Ed. 1501. It is observed that the first tw

he attributes of nations to the extent that treaties were made with them. In that year, however, Congress, by statute, declared its in
tead of by treaty. Since then, Indian affairs have been regulated by acts if Congress and by contracts with the Indian tribes practi

. Ed. 260 [1941].

original Title to Indian Lands, Sec. 2[a] [1979].

886].

48-49 [1947].

overnment having no landlord from whom it holds the fee- Shoshone Tribe of Indians of Wind River Reservation in Wyoming v
9 [1938].

is., 95 U.S. 517, 24 L. Ed. 440, 441 [1877]; see also 42 C.J.S., Indians, Sec. 28 [1944 ed.].

Fed 425, Sec. 2 [b] [1979]- hereinafter cited as Aboriginal Title to Indian Lands.

Ct. 313 [1955], reh den 348 U.S. 965, 99 L. Ed. 753, 75 S. Ct. 521.
 772 [1974]; U.S. v. Alcea Bank of Tillamooks, 329 U.S. 40, 91 L. Ed. 29. 67 S. Ct. 167 [1946].

l title rests on actual, exclusive and continuous use and occupancy for a long time prior to the loss of the property. (The Indian C
ement of Indians and removal of Indians from certain portions of the land an the designation of Indian land into forest preserve, g

strictions extend to a devise of the land by will- Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. U.S., 235 U.S. 37, 59 L. Ed. 116,. 35 S. Ct. 6 [1914];
ailroad right of way were, by the terms of the treaty, declared "public land," implying that land beyond the right of way was priv

th the national government and developing their own laws. Some have their own government-recognized constitutions. Usually
complex jurisdictional and litigation matters. Tribes have acquired the status of sovereign nations within another nation, possessi
nal, vol. 32: 97, 104 [1997].

sprudence and Legislation, 5 Phil. Nat. Res. L.J. No. 1, pp. 43, 40 [Aug. 1992]; see also Tee Hit Ton Indians v. U.S., supra, at 3

rican Indian Land and Liberation in the Contemporary United States, The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization and
dian Law 15 (National Lawyers Guild, Committee on Native American Struggles 1982).

d that Congress is subject to the strictures of the Constitution in dealing with Indians. When an Indian property is taken for non-
g Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. 299 U.S. 476 [1937]; Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 [1912]; and Lane v. Pueblo of Santa Rosa, 249 U.

of Lands v. Buyco, 216 SCRA 78 [1992]; Republic v. Court of Appeals and Lapina, 235 SCRA 567 [1994].
.

certain ICCs/Ips are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner, and utilized a defined territory devolved to the

is an exception to Section 15, P.D. 705, the Revised Forestry Code.

and Integration, Indigenous Peoples of Asia, supra, at pp. 345, 350.

anuary 25, 1977, however, Sec. 48 [b] and 48 [c] were further amended by P.D. 1073 stating that these provisions on cultural min

Tolentino, vol. I, pp. 12-14.

estral domains, whether delineated or not, shall be presumed to be communally held: provided, That communal rights under this

. 23 [Dec. 1989].
l Title, Part II, supra, at 23.

sputes among members of the indigenous communities, viz:

s.- The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes between members of the c

84 [1910].

l not be countenanced."

e."

ristian provinces- this is now Art. 33 of the Family Code; Art. 118, now Art. 74 of the Family Code on property relations betwee
Civil Code, vol. 1, p. 25.

aeta Romulo, 92 SCRA 1 [1979]; Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736 [1988]; Please see Aquino, Civil Code, vol. 1, p. 26 f

ws (P.D. 1083) which took effect on February 4, 1977 despite the effectivity of the Civil Code and the Family Code. P.D. 1083 g

ous Theora and Praxis of Man-Nature Relationship, Dakami Ya Nan Dagami, p. 36, Papers and Proceedings of the 1st Cordillera

nput to the mining operation other than the mineral resource- Section 26 (b), R.A. 7942, the Philippine Mining Act of 1995.

the government and the contractor with both parties having equity shares, and the government entitled to a share in the gross ou

he contractor the exclusive right to conduct mining operations within a contract area and shares in the gross output. The contract

or mineral production sharing agreement between the State and a small-scale mining contractor for the small-scale utilization of

was declared that if a person is the owner of a piece of agricultural land on which minerals are discovered, his ownership of such
w, Principles and Cases, vol. 2, pp. 800-801 [1999].

al domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of this Act, shall be recognized and respected."

ers of general circulation (Sec. 84, IPRA). The IPRA was published in the Chronicle and Malaya on Nov. 7, 1997.

estral domains:

d ecology in the ancestral domain by protecting the flora and fauna, watershed areas, and other reserves;

he reforestation of denuded areas and other development programs and projects subject to just and reasonable renumeration;

the rules and regulations for its effective implementation."

hereof, which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, fore
poses. The ICCs/IPs concerned shall be given the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve such areas with the fu

7] citing the 1986 UP Law Constitution Project, The National Economy and Patrimony, p. 11.

activities which rely heavily on manual labor using simple implements and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining

By Barnes, Gray and Kingsbury, pub. By Ass'n. for Asian Studies, at 35, 42 [1995].

rk Group for Indigenous Affairs, 1988.

nmental and Human Rights Perspective, 32 Texas International Law Journal 97, 102 [1997].

Approach to the Asian Controversy, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 92: 414, 429 [1998].

n, the WB pulled out of the project but the conflict between the Philippine government and the natives endured long after- Marcu

g, November 20, 1996, p. 20.

onal Labor Organization, and the ILO-Bilance- Asia Dep't, p. 3 [1999].

Ethnic Law within the Philippine Legal Order, 55 P.L.J. 383, 385 [1980].

the Phil. National Historical Society, Inc., p. 6 [1997].

SEPARATE OPINION

ows itself in a given judicial controversy, the rules of procedure, like locus standi, the propriety of the specific remedy inv
e isolationism, by the Court.

a personal and substantial interest in the dispute;1 indeed, the developing trend would require a logical nexus between the status
n the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision so as to warrant his invocation of
er magnitude and scope to a point that may, in no small measure, adversely affect its intended essentiality, stability and conseque

portance and paramount interest to the nation,3 the Court must take the liberal approach that recognizes the legal standing of non
ntil and exact balance is struck, the Court must accept an eclectic notion that can free itself from the bondage of legal nic

Act No. 8371, a law that obviously is yet incapable of exact equation in its significance to the nation and its people now and in t
apparently intended to be a legislative response to the 1987 Constitution which recognizes the rights of indigenous cultural com
" to protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands in order to ensure their economic, social, and c

ace "all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources" inc
nities/indigenous peoples ("ICCs/IPs") could exercise virtual ownership and control.

terally millions of hectares. The notion of community property would comprehend not only matters of proprietary intere
IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected," subsumed under which would encompass the right of ownersh
reas for the purpose of ensuring ecological, environmental protection and the conservation measures, pursuant to national and cu
); the right to claim parts of ancestral domains previously reserved (par. g); and the right to resolve land conflicts in acco
urces within the ancestral domains." These provisions of IPRA, in their totality, are, in my view, beyond the context of the
 ls, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forest or timber, wildlife, flora and fau
atural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State."8

in the 1935 Constitution, forming Article XII under the title "Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources", were derived
isions were based, was "that the land, minerals, forest and other natural resources constitute the exclusive heritage of the Filipin
s view that the "policy on natural resources, being fundamental to the nations survival should not be left to the changing mood o

ses this regalian doctrine of the old, and the domainial doctrine of the new, that all lands and natural resources belong to the stat
all other natural resources, of the country must remain with the state, the exploration, development and utilization of w
orporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development and utilization.12

parcel of land held since time immemorial by individuals under a claim of private ownership is presumed never to have been pu
from them that all government authority emanates. 14 It is not then for a court ruling or any piece of legislation to be conformed t

the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral d
ve itself easily provided without having to still commission Congress to do it. Mr. Chief Justice Davide has explained this autho

tions in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domain is concerned, it is respectfully submitted that the particula
mandate that the same must immediately be applicable. We leave it to Congress to determine the extent of the ancestral domain a

s and, with specificity and by proper recitals, to hew them to, and make them part of, the stream of laws. The "due proces
pecifically enacted to become part of statutory law, must first undergo that publication to render them correspondingly binding a

mine the law. Indeed, the State is exhorted to protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral land

RA 236, 244.

SCRA 27, 36, 37.

Rev. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., on the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1996 Ed., pp. 336-337.
 Jr., 240 SCRA 100.

SEPARATE OPINION

land because only the race lives forever. To claim a piece of land is a birthright of every man. The lowly animals claim their pla
d) is an obligation, not merely a right. In tilling the land, you possess it. And so land is a grace that must be nurtured. To enrich i

s" in Indigenous View of Land and the Environment, ed. Shelton H. Davis, the World Bank Discussion Papers, No. 188, pp. 71-

r than in violation of, the Constitution.1 The presumption is that the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law an

f such presumption of constitutionality. Further, the interpretation of these provisions should take into account the purpose of th

eir heritage, is not unique. It is one that they share with the red-skinned "Indians" of the United States, with the aborigines of Au
st by the promise of a progressive future. Thus has the international community realized the injustices that have been perpetrated
tion on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which was adopted by the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and P
have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, occupied, used or damaged without th
e term has come to be used, it is nearer in meaning to the Latin word indigenus, which means "native."3 "Indigenous" refers to th
some degree of controversy. No definition of the term "indigenous peoples" has been adopted by the United Nations (UN), alth

e-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sections of the so
ncestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cul

esent, of one or more of the following factors:

bal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, life-style, etc.);

eans of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);

who have retained a high degree of continuity from pre-Conquest culture.7 Philippine legal history, however, has not been kind to

olitically-correct conjunctive term "indigenous peoples/indigenous cultural communities" as follows:

societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community on commu
ustoms, traditions, and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of
ous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country at the time of conquest or colonization, or at th
ut who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains x x x.

soil and hunting in our forests. The Filipinos of Aeta and Malay stock, who were the original inhabitants of our archipelago, we
their lands. Today, from the remote uplands of Northern Luzon, to Palawan, Mindoro and Mindanao, the indigenous peoples con

ure exhibits only the last vestiges of this native culture. Centuries of colonial rule and neocolonial domination have created a disc
n cultural elements that are decidedly pronounced, if not dominant.14 While the culture of the majority reoriented itself to Weste

Filipinos are members of the one hundred and ten or so indigenous cultural communities,15 accounting for more than seventeen
n among them is significantly higher than the national average. The indigenous peoples are also among the most powerless. Perh
from economic exploitation.
ers, fittingly saw the historic opportunity to actualize the ideals of people empowerment and social justice, and to reach out parti
digenous peoples, to wit:

national unity and development.17

d programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, a

tions in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains.18

hance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequit

s increments.19

accordance with law, in the disposition and utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lea

to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national pla

digenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall come from such communities.22

g others, that the State shall recognize and promote the rights of indigenous peoples within the framework of national unity and d
and extent of the ancestral domains.23 Moreover, IPRA enumerates the civil and political rights of the indigenous peoples;24 spell
President.27

ase; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be exerc

e, therefore, is whether an "appropriate case" exists for the exercise of judicial review in the present case.

on and susceptible of judicial determination, and that which is not conjectural or anticipatory,30 or that which seeks to resolve hy
a conflict of rights exists, for inherent in the term "controversy" is the presence of opposing views or contentions.32 Otherwise, th
ts exploring every aspect of a multi-faceted situation embracing conflicting and demanding interests.33 The controversy must als

cted, and the Implementing Rules and Regulations approved. Money has been appropriated and the government agencies concer
dicial resolution. It is precisely the contention of the petitioners that the law, on its face, constitutes an unconstitutional abdication
ssesses sufficient authority to resolve and prevent imminent injury and violation of the constitutional process.

ons herein.

tute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that, he has sustained, or will sustain, a direct injury as a resul
 Yet, in a sense, all citizens and taxpayers suits are efforts to air generalized grievances about the conduct of government and th

equirement is considered as merely procedural,39 and the Court has ample discretion with regard thereto.40 As early as 1910, the

e personal or special interest in the subject matter, since he is regarded as the real party in interest and his right must clearly appe
t, and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted need not show that he has any legal or special intere

be the subject of an actual case or controversy. In Severino, we ruled that a private citizen may enforce a "public right" in behal

ified elector in the municipality of Silay. It is also true that the injury which he would suffer in case he fails to obtain the relief s
alified electors of the town of Silay. Each elector has the same right and would suffer the same injury. Each elector stands

tters of public concern.

matters of national concern.

ul ecology which, for the first time in our nations constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law."47 Mr

preservation and self-perpetuation-aptly and fittingly stressed by petitioners-the advancement of which may even be said to pred

d and diminished in violation of the Constitution. Since the government, as the guardian of the national patrimony, holds it for t
patrimony strictly complies with constitutional requirements. Thus, the preservation of the integrity and inviolability of the natio

through the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. It is well-settled that a taxpayer has the right to enjoin public officials fro
his taxes and contributed to the public coffers and, thus, may inquire into the manner by which the proceeds of his taxes are spen

Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples, Creating the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Est
mount necessary to finance [its] initial implementation shall be charged against the current year's appropriation for the Office for
ject of a taxpayers suit.

n, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, ordering said entity or person to desist from further procee
equate remedy in the ordinary course of law.54 Mandamus, on the other hand, is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, co
the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or when said entity or person unlawfully excludes

ovisions of the IPRA and its Implementing Rules and the assailed DENR Circular No. 2, series of 1998, and that the same officia
the activities pertaining to natural resources.

sions of the IPRA and from disbursing funds in connection therewith if the law is found to be unconstitutional. Likewise, manda
tly, the petition for prohibition and mandamus is not an improper remedy for the relief sought.
risdiction over the petition in view of the importance of the issues raised therein.

upon the issues of a case. That way, as a particular case goes through the hierarchy of courts, it is shorn of all but the important l
ice.

has concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, man
said writs shall be allowed only where the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and

traordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter,
r, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate deman

ves not only of the indigenous peoples but also upon the lives of all Filipinos cannot be denied. The resolution of this case by the

tutionality of certain provisions of IPRA, specifically Sections 3(a), 3(b), 5, 6, 7, 8, 57, 58 and 59. These provisions allegedly vio

orces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the Stat
rvision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or produc
ng twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided b

sive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons.

or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils acc
development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

on, within thirty days from its execution.

ral lands and ancestral domains by virtue of native title.61 The term "ancestral lands" under the statute refers to lands occupied
required to have been "occupied, possessed and utilized" by them or through their ancestors "since time immemorial, continuous
ltural lands, hunting grounds, worship areas, and lands no longer occupied exclusively by indigenous cultural communities but to
eas and natural resources therein.63 Again, the same are required to have been "held under a claim of ownership, occupied or pos
ral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of said law "shall be recognized and respected."

ncestral domains, and natural resources are unconstitutional. The fundamental question is, who, between the State and the indige

amental law.65 The reason is that the legislature, in enacting a statute, is assumed to have acted within its authority and adhered t
essary to effectuate the specific purpose of the law.66
and ancestral domains are not unconstitutional.

d, thus, owned by the State, pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, petitioners and the Solicitor General advance t

n over the Philippines by virtue of discovery and conquest. They contend that the Spanish King under the theory of jura regalia,

wned by the State. They invoke the theory of jura regalia which imputes to the State the ownership of all lands and makes the St

ners maintain that the doctrine merely states that title to lands of the public domain may be acquired by prescription. The Solicit
nds, and national parks.

estral domains existed by virtue of the Cario doctrine, such native title was extinguished upon the ratification of the 1935 Const

protect that rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands and ancestral domains. However, they contend that the mandate
ands and ancestral domains is far in excess of the legislative power and constitutional mandate of Congress.

posit that R.A. 8371 violates Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution which prohibits the alienation of non-agricultural lands o

le. Not only is the theory well recognized in our legal system; it has been regarded, almost with reverence, as the immutable post

ss or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial government, and thereafter, the Philippine Repu

by virtue of his prerogatives.70 In Spanish law, it refers to a right which the sovereign has over anything in which a subject has a

the use of lands was granted out to others who were permitted to hold them under certain conditions, the King theoretically retain
fore nothing more than a natural fruit of conquest.74

me immemorial. In the landmark case of Cario vs. Insular Government75 the United States Supreme Court, reversing the decisi

t might, perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as far back as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held
mphasis supplied.)

p of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since time immemorial and independent of any grant fr

land located in Benguet. The applicant established that he and his ancestors had lived on the land, had cultivated it, and had use
ncestors had any document of title from the Spanish Crown. The government opposed the application for registration, invoking t

were binding as precedent in our jurisdiction.78 We applied the Cario doctrine in the 1946 case of Oh Cho vs. Director of Lands
 have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since time immemorial, for such possession woul

at the applicant had complied with the requisites of acquisitive prescription, having established that he and his predecessors-in-in
to Cario by virtue of prescription. They conclude that the doctrine cannot be the basis for decreeing "by mere legislative fiat

he public domain and, as such, cannot be extended to other lands of the public domain such as forest or timber, mineral lands, an

hich have always been considered as private, and not to lands of the public domain, whether alienable or otherwise. A distinct
held by its possessor and his predecessors-in-interest in the concept of an owner since time immemorial. The land is not acquired
te in character as far back as memory goes. In contrast, ownership of land by acquisitive prescription against the State involves a
operty covered by it is private land and is deemed never to have been part of the public domain, the Solicitor Generals thesis th
national parks under the Constitution82 is irrelevant to the application of the Cario doctrine because the Regalian doctrine whic

eof in the 16th century and the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 which it entered into with Portugal,83 the continents of Asia, the Am
rs of the international community of civilized nations, of lands in the said continents were deemed sufficient to create title under

t it acquired title to all lands in the archipelago. By virtue of the colonial laws of Spain, the Spanish Crown was considered to ha

property. Miguel Lopez de Legazpi was under instruction of the Spanish King to do no harm to the natives and to their property.

y to avoid a repetition of the sanguinary conquests of Mexico and Peru. In his written instructions for the Adelantado Legazpi, w
heologian, Francisco de Vitoria, delivered in the University of Salamanca. The King instructed Legazpi to inform the natives tha
ch they will be saved." Although the Spanish expedition could defend themselves if attacked, the royal instructions admonished

cy.88 Thus, the Recopilacin de Leyes de las Indias expressly conferred ownership of lands already held by the natives.89 The roy
st legalize their possession by means of adjustment proceedings,90 and within the period specified. The later royal decree, dated
Despite the harsh wording of the Maura Law, it was held in the case of Cario that the royal decree of 1894 should not be constr

rary to petitioners assertion that the US merely succeeded to the rights of Spain, including the latters rights over lands of the pu
tle to land was respected, even protected. The Philippine Bill of 1902 provided that property and rights acquired by the US throu
ontained a bill of rights embodying the safeguards of the US Constitution. One of these rights, which served as an inviolable rule
rights safeguarded by the Philippine Bill of 1902 were in turn expressly protected by the due process clause of the 1935 Constitu

ancestral lands and domains were "abated by the direct act by the sovereign Filipino people of ratifying the 1935 Constitution."

consolidation of rights inherent in ownership in the State. Through the mandate of the Constitutions that have been adopted, the
gitimate exercise of police power.
 ive of social welfare and existence. To allow otherwise is to invite havoc in the established social system. x x x

ve been found from generation to generation to be critical to the survival of the Sovereign and its agent, the State.98

d the power to re-vest in itself, through the 1935 Constitution, title to all lands, including ancestral lands and ancestral domains. W
bsolute and may be impaired by the legitimate exercise of police power.

while embodying the theory of jura regalia, is too clear for any misunderstanding. It simply declares that "all agricultural, timber
owhere does it state that certain lands which are "absolutely necessary for social welfare and existence," including those which a
an impairment or extinguishment, of vested rights. Stated otherwise, Section 1, Article XII of the 1935 Constitution cannot be co
ources [which the State] deems absolutely necessary for social welfare and existence." On the contrary, said Section restated the
, grant, lease, or concessions." The "existing rights" that were intended to be protected must, perforce, include the right of owne
restrictive definition.
01
to protect the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands and ancestral domains. Nonetheless, they contend that the re
he Congress,102 since such recognition and protection amount to the alienation of lands of the public domain, which is proscribed

genous peoples to their ancestral lands." In its general and ordinary sense, the term "right" refers to any legally enforceable claim
legal claim to hold, use and enjoy it.105 Said provision in the Constitution cannot, by any reasonable construction, be interpreted
sions of IPRA, specifically Sections 7(a) and 8, which recognize the right of ownership of the indigenous peoples over ancestral

plicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain
ine whether the "extent" of ancestral domains shall include the natural resources found therein?

d Congress to decide whether ancestral domains shall be public or private property. Rather, they acknowledged that ancestral do
r clans within the community. The discussion below between Messrs. Regalado and Bennagen and Mr. Chief Justice Davide, the

missioner Bennagen or Commissioner Davide regarding this phrase "CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICABILI
wnership and the extent thereof which determine the property rights or relations arising therefrom. On the other hand, in this prop
ertain difference in the customary laws and our regular civil laws on property.

ke the necessary exception to the general law on property relations.

stomary law wherein it is the property rights and relations that determine the ownership and the extent of that ownership, unlike
s may have a different provision or thrust so that we could make the corresponding suggestions also by way of an amendment.

p based on individuals, on clan or lineage, or on community. And the thinking expressed in the consultation is that this shoul

nge between Messrs. Suarez and Bennagen:

ing the ownership and extent of the ancestral domain, are we thinking in terms of the tribal ownership or community ownership
te individuals, clans and even communities.

the ancestral domain and there is a separate law for that. Within the ancestral domain it could accept more specific ownership in

Cario in their deliberations, they did not intend to adopt the concept of native title to land, or that they were unaware of native
ject of constitutional provisions, and courts should take these doctrines into consideration in construing the Constitution.109

erty of indigenous peoples, the IPRA, by affirming or acknowledging such ownership through its various provisions, merely abid

nt policies and programs" in Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution to mean "as subject to the provision of Section 2, Article
estral lands and ancestral domains are the property of the State.

935 and 1973 Constitutions on the state policy of conservation and nationalization of lands of the public domain and natural reso
ed the phrase "subject to the provisions of this Constitution" mainly to prevent the impairment of Torrens titles and other prior ri

es this affect the Torrens title and other prior rights?

ases where due process is clearly established in terms of prior rights, these two have to be respected.

City are considered as ancestral lands?

ublications that I provided the Commissioners, the parts could be considered as ancestral domain in relation to the whole popula

land?

s can speak of the Philippine archipelago as ancestral land, but not in terms of the right of a particular person or particular group

onstitution as a reiteration of the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law

nous peoples to their ancestral lands cannot be construed as subject to Section 2 of the same Article ascribing ownership of all pu
provision. That construction should be used which would give effect to the entire instrument.111

natural resources should be read together with the other provisions thereof which firmly recognize the rights of the indigenous pe
development; Section 5, Article XII, calling for the protection of the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestr
ncestral domains; Section 1, Article XIII, directing the removal or reduction of social, economic, political and cultural inequitie
sposition and utilization of other natural resources, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of ind
velop their cultures, traditions, and institutions; and Section 12, Article XVI, authorizing the Congress to create a consultative b

distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth.113 Equity is given prominence as the first objective of national economic d
constitutional norms. As explained by then Commissioner (now Chief Justice) Hilario G. Davide, Jr., it was not their objective t
 SUBJECT TO THE provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS shall
nt weights very often. They are the concepts of national development policies and programs, and the rights of cultural or tribal co
al minorities are precisely transgressed in the interest of national development policies and programs. Hence, I would like to kno

concept introduced here is really the balancing of interests. That is what we seek to attain. We have to balance the interests t

within the ancestral domains.

in and other natural resources,116 as well as the States full control and supervision over the exploration, development and utiliza
part, that "[a]ll lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential ener
e inclusion of natural resources in the definition of ancestral domains purportedly results in the abdication of State ownership ov

mposition of ancestral domains by setting forth the standards and guidelines in determining whether a particular area is to be con
ognize any right of ownership over the natural resources to the indigenous peoples. Its purpose is definitional and not declarative

hat no unnecessary encroachment on private properties outside the ancestral domains will result during the delineation process. T
ndigenous peoples. Similarly, Section 5 in relation to Section 3(a) cannot be construed as a source of ownership rights of indigen

pt of ownership as distinguished from that provided in the Civil Code. In Civil Law, "ownership" is the "independent and genera
receive from the thing that which it produces, jus abutendi or the right to consume the thing by its use, jus disponendi or the pow
oples concept of ownership emphasizes the importance of communal or group ownership. By virtue of the communal character

so clear from the deliberations of the bicameral conference committee on Section 7 which recites the rights of indigenous people

red the other provision but here itself -

. Chairman, we have decided to remove the provisions on natural resources because we all agree that that belongs to the S
ion or either rights for them to be consulted before any mining areas should be done in their areas, any logging done in their area
here so that maybe the right to consultation and the right to be compensated when there are damages within their ancestral lands

sidered in subsequent sections which we are now looking for.

where they are. Number two, in terms of the mines there is a need for prior consultation of source which is here already. So, anyw
ou do not have and if you agree we will adopt that.127 (Emphasis supplied.)

tural resources. In fact, Section 7(a) merely recognizes the "right to claim ownership over lands, bodies of water traditionally an
ch enumerates certain rights of the indigenous peoples over the natural resources found within their ancestral domains, contain a

natural resources found within their ancestral domains,128 including the preservation of the ecological balance therein and the ne

gnized in the Philippines. NCIP and Flavier, et al. invoke the case of Reavies v. Fianza129 in support of their thesis that native tit
he 1935 Constitution."131 However, a judicious examination of Reavies reveals that, contrary to the position of NCIP and Flavie

of time immemorial possession in the concept of an owner was acknowledged and recognized as far back during the Spanish co
on for its consistent assertion of ownership and control over said natural resources from the Spanish regime up to the present.132
erals wherever these may be found, whether in public or private lands, recognized the separability of title over lands and that ove

As the owner of natural resources over the Philippines after the latters cession from Spain, the United States saw it fit to allow b
and pursuant to the laws then prevailing could exclude other persons, even the State, from exploiting minerals within his property
he 1935 Constitution found it necessary to maintain the States ownership over natural resources to insure their conservation for
conflicts, thereby posing danger to its internal security and independence.135

Constitution was reiterated in both the 1973136 and 1987 Constitutions.137

he State, the Court deems it necessary to clarify that the jurisdiction of the NCIP with respect to ancestral domains under Section

person of the NCIP shall certify that the area covered is an ancestral domain. The secretaries of the Department of Agrarian Refo
n, and any other government agency claiming jurisdiction over the area shall be notified thereof. Such notification shall terminat

n of other agencies of the Government, such as the Department of Agrarian Reform, with respect to agricultural lands, and the D
s 51 to 53 of the IPRA, jurisdiction of the government agency or agencies concerned over lands forming part thereof ceases. Ne
aws to administer the natural resources for the State, which is the owner thereof. To construe Section 52[i] as divesting the State
wned by the State.

esources found on the ancestral domains, to benefit from and share in the profits from the allocation and utilization of these reso
ny natural resources within the ancestral domains.139 Before the NCIP can issue a certification for the renewal, or grant of any co
genous peoples are given the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve the ancestral domains or portions thereof

tilization of our countrys natural resources. Petitioners, on the other hand, allege that under the Constitution the exploration, de
no other method is allowed by the Constitution. They likewise submit that by vesting ownership of ancestral lands and ancestral
 pment and utilization of natural resources must be under the full control and supervision of the State, which may directly undert
forms of utilization of natural resources other than the foregoing are prohibited. The Constitution must be regarded as consisten
be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the fundamental law.145

s stated in paragraph 1, Section 2 of Article XII, the Constitution itself states in the third paragraph of the same section that Con
ply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship.147 Similarly, Section 7, Article XIII mandates the State to protect the rights
law, and in harmony with the other provisions of the Constitution rather as a sequestered pronouncement,149 cannot be construed

utilization of the natural resources under existing laws,150 the State retains full control over such activities, whether done on sma

ons 7(b) and 57 of IPRA amplify what has been granted to them under existing laws, such as the Small-Scale Mining Act of 199
ndigenous peoples living within said area shall be given priority in the awarding of small-scale mining contracts.152 R.A. 794
such indigenous cultural community give their consent to mining operations within their ancestral land, royalties shall be paid t

ples are duly circumscribed. These rights are limited only to the following: "to manage and conserve natural resources within t
loration of natural resources in the areas for the purpose of ensuring ecological, environmental protection and the conservation
upon the ancestral domains and to receive just and fair compensation for any damages which they may sustain as a result of th

nly to the exploration of natural resources. The term "exploration" refers only to the search or prospecting of mineral resources
re process of "exploration, development and utilization" of natural resources which under the Constitution belong to the State.

ural resources and not absolute ownership thereof. Priority rights does not mean exclusive rights. What is granted is merely the ri

of concessions. Nor does the law negate the exercise of sound discretion by government entities. Several factors still have to be c
indigenous peoples must show that they live in the area and that they are in the best position to undertake the required utilization

ority to disregard pertinent laws and regulations. The utilization of said natural resources is always subject to compliance by the

tivities, or entering into co-production, joint venture or production-sharing agreements with private entities, to utilize the natural
nterests of the State for national development and those of the indigenous peoples.

om undertaking the same activities within the ancestral domains upon authority granted by the proper governmental agency. To

atural resources is nothing new. As previously mentioned, Section 7, Article XIII of the Constitution mandates the protection by

within the ancestral domains may disrupt the natural environment as well as the traditional activities of the indigenous peoples

s that the prior informed consent of the indigenous peoples be obtained. The State must, as a matter of policy and law, consult th
s well as national plans. As may be gathered from the discussion of the framers of the Constitution on this point, the national pla
in the formulation and implementation of any project, government or private, and the right not to be removed therefrom without
 proviso in Section 57 in case the State enters into a co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreement with Filipino
ernment Code160 and the Philippine Mining Act of 1995161already require increased consultation and participation of stakeholder

procured before the NCIP can issue a certification for the "issuance, renewal, or grant of any concession, license or lease, or to t
n of an additional requirement for such concession or agreement. The clear intent of the law is to protect the rights and interests o

onstitution, which provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any

3(a) and 3(b) of IPRA includes private lands. They argue that the inclusion of private lands in the ancestral lands and ancestral d

are "subject to Section 56," which reads:

isting and/or vested upon effectivity of this Act, shall be recognized and protected.

oples, but not those who are not members of such communities. Following their interpretation, IPRA, under Section 56, recogniz
rpretation is obviously incorrect.

genous or non-indigenous peoples. Said provision makes no distinction as to the ethnic origins of the ownership of these "propert
istinguish.163 What IPRA only requires is that these "property rights" already exist and/or vested upon its effectivity.

n areas claimed as ancestral lands or ancestral domains. The statute imposes strict procedural requirements for the proper delinea
eedings for delineation of ancestral lands and ancestral domains, the Director of Lands shall appear to represent the interest of th
d, investigation and census by the Ancestral domains Office ("ADO") of the NCIP; third, preliminary report by the ADO; fourt
atute imposes the following procedural requirements: first, application; second, posting and publication; third, investigation and
no protection to those who are not indigenous peoples.

CIP167 and the application of customary law,168 violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

indigenous peoples, 169 and that the NCIP shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving indigenous peoples,170 in
aim that the members of the NCIP are incapable of being fair and impartial judges. They merely contend that the NCIP will not a
eoples] cannot but harbor a suspicion that they do not have the cold neutrality of an impartial judge."172

es involving property, succession and land,173 and that such laws shall likewise be used in disputes involving indigenous people
a denial of due process. . . [because those who are not indigenous peoples] do not know what these customary laws are."175

us peoples does not mean that it (the NCIP) is incapable, or will appear to be so incapable, of delivering justice to the non-indig
e as the non-indigenous peoples for, certainly, the latter have no monopoly of the concept of justice.

powers. Section 67 states that the decision of the NCIP shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by petition for review. The r
 ce it to say that such is allowed under paragraph 2, Section 5 of Article XII of the Constitution. Said provision states, "The Cong
under IPRA is not absolute, for the law speaks merely of primacy of use.176 The IPRA prescribes the application of such custom
Rules which states:

g ICCs/IPs, such as but not limited to conflicting claims and boundary disputes, shall be resolved by the concerned parties throug

or where the dispute could not be resolved through customary law shall be heard and adjudicated in accordance with the

determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domains, 177 where all the parties involved are members of indigenou
d belong to different groups, the application of customary law is not required.

ncerning ancestral lands and domains where all parties involved are indigenous peoples is justice. The utilization of customary l

the Civil Code, use of customary law is sanctioned, as long as it is proved as a fact according to the rules of evidence,179 and it is
members of indigenous peoples. This law admits the operation of customary laws in the settling of disputes if such are ordinaril

nts power of control over the Executive Department.

II of the Constitution, which provides that:

re that the laws be faithfully executed.

f policies, plans and programs to recognize, promote and protect the rights and well-being of indigenous peoples. It shall be an in
urposes of policy and program coordination. This relationship shall be carried out through a system of periodic reporting. Matt

er the NCIP by characterizing the relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President as "lateral but autonomous...for purpose

aracterize the NCIP as an independent agency under the Office of the President, such characterization does not remove said body

rmulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and well being of the indigenous
he diverse nature of the NCIPs functions renders it impossible to place said agency entirely under the control of only one branc
he executive branch or one not subject to a superior head of department, as distinguished from a "subordinate agency" or an adm
 vident in the IPRA itself, which provides that the decisions of the NCIP in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions shall be ap
to a certain degree, was placed by Congress "under the office of the President" and, as such, is still subject to the Presidents pow
re the Presidents approval in obtaining loans to finance its projects;189 (2) it must obtain the Presidents approval for any negotia
nt, and advise the latter on all matters relating to the indigenous peoples;191 and (4) it shall exercise such other powers as may be
on of any indigenous community.194

, and 8) affirming the ownership by the indigenous peoples of their ancestral lands and domains by virtue of native title do not d
ain, following the doctrine laid down in Cario vs. Insular Government;195

ther natural resources in the State is not violated by Sections 3, 5, 7, 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the IPRA which grant certain rights to
priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation thereof. The State retains full control over the explorati
ization of natural resources under existing laws, such as the Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991196and the Philippine Mining Act of
nder the aforesaid laws;

ncestral lands and domains, it also protects the vested rights of persons, whether indigenous or non-indigenous peoples, who may

ions 40, 51-54, 62, 63, 65 and 66) of the IPRA which, among others, establish the composition of the NCIP, and prescribe the ap
mpartial. Moreover, the use of customary laws is sanctioned by paragraph 2, Section 5 of Article XII of the Constitution; and

nt agency under the Office of the President does not infringe upon the Presidents power of control under Section 17, Article VI
d supervision with respect to its administrative functions. However, insofar as the decisions of the NCIP in the exercise of its qu

SCRA 69 (1979); Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 90 Phil 674 (1952).

ast Spanish empire. India was a synonym for all of Asia east of the Indus River. Even after it became apparent that the explorer C
Jr., THE PHILIPPINE COLONIAL DICHOTOMY: Attraction and Disenfranchisement, 63 PL J 112 [1988] citing R. BERKHO

pproach to the Asian Controversy, 92 The American Journal of International Law 414, 419 (1998) citing Jose Martinez Cobo, St

view of indigenous peoples by requiring "historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on the
 Congress, Third Session on HR 18459, pp. 346, 351. Quoted in Rubi at 686.

l 7, 1900, quoted in Rubi at 680.

ontemporary Philippine Land Laws (1900-1913), 63 PLJ 249 (1988).

s Custom Law, see Owen J. Lynch, Jr., Native Title, Private Right and Tribal Land Law: An Introductory Survey 52 PLJ 268 (19

oro Agoncillo, A History of the Filipino People, 8th ed., pp. 5, 74-75.

Osmea on ouse Bill No. 9125, Journal of August 20 and 21, 1997 of the House of Representatives, p.20.

ture, and Sports.

all the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) hereunder enumerated within the framework

mework of national unity and development;

nsure their economic, social and cultural well being and shall recognize the applicability of customary laws governing property r

rve and develop their cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national laws and po

hall equally enjoy the full measure of human rights and freedoms without distinction or discrimination;

ned, to protect their rights and guarantee respect for their cultural integrity, and to ensure that members of the ICCs/IPs benefit o
e ICCs/IPs for cultural integrity by assuring maximum ICC/IP participation in the direction of education, health, as well as other

nisms to enforce and guarantee the realization of these rights, taking into consideration their customs, traditions, values, beliefs,

56 (1937).

, 364 (1989); Joya v. PCGG, 225 SCRA 568 (1993).

sa v. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 479 (1965); CLU V. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991); Guingona v. Carague, 196 SCRA 22

rule on standing as follows: taxpayers may sue on the claim of illegal disbursement of funds, or to assail the constitutionality of a
ators may question the validity of official acts which infringe their prerogatives.

SCRA 343, 364-365 (1989).

blic Works, 110 Phil. 331 (1960); Tan v. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 677, 680 (1972).

ation of this Act shall be charged against the current year's appropriation of the ONCC and the OSCC. Thereafter, such sums as

ties (ONCC) and the Office for Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC), created under Executive Order Nos. 122-B and 122-C

c ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

beas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
ise original jurisdiction:

, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and

of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights shall include:

water traditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional

me within the domains;

xxx

, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands a

memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owners, and utilized a defined territo

d, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themsel
or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered in

nerally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas and natural resources therein, held under a claim of
t when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects o
include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether alienable and dispo
nous peoples but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home

RA 69 (1979).
d. (1886), p.2; Bigelow, p. 2.

n this case held that in the Philippines, there is no conclusive presumption of a grant of title to land from the Government founde

, with the former having exclusive power to claim all lands and territories west of the Atlantic Ocean demarcation line (Lynch, T

5th ed., 142-143.

d dominion. Sovereignty is the right to exercise the functions of a State to the exclusion of any other State (Case Concerning the
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary Vol. 2, p. 419). On the other hand, dominion, or dominium,

jura regalia. The declaration in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution that all lands of the public domain are owned by
were limited to non-private lands, because it could only acquire lands which were not yet privately-owned or occupied by the Fi

s, 1565-1700 (1959), pp. 8-9.

farms and lands to Spaniards be without injury to the Indians and that those which have been granted to their loss and injury, be
, and all lands, territories, and possessions not heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pe
er that x x x after distributing to the natives what may be necessary for tillage and pasteurage, confirming them in what they no
no, 3 Phil. 537, 542-543 (1904).] (Emphasis supplied.)

74. We command that in the Philippine Islands the Indians not be removed from one to another settlement by force and against t

y Philip III. It is right that time should be allowed the Indians to work their own individual lands and those of the community.

e Viceroys, Presidents, and Audiencias that they see to it that the Indians have complete liberty in their dispositions.

produce title deeds it shall be sufficient if they shall show that ancient possession, as a valid title by prescription; x x x. [Quo

ra note 89 at 549.

ppine Islands, x x x.

hree months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.

ee of this treaty, Spain relinquishes in Cuba, and cedes in Porto Rico and other islands of the West Indies, in the Island of Guam,
ng to the public domain and as such belong to the Crown of Spain.

e, to which the preceding paragraph refers, can not in any respect impair the property or rights which by law belong to the peace
o acquire and possess property in the aforesaid territories renounced or ceded, or of private individuals, of whatsoever nationality

he Philippine Islands under the treaty of peace with Spain, signed December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, except su
nder the control of the Government of said Islands, to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof, except as provid

McKinleys Instructions to the New Constitution: Documents on the Philippine Constitutional System (1978) p. 71.
 als, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong t
of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inaug
r lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding tw
power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

ional development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to e

property rights and relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains.

ned.

portunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benef

agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resource

ountry shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives and similar coll

speech of Dr. Bernardo Villegas, Chairman of the Committee on National Economy and Patrimony.
l mean:

y belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of own
nterrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any oth
lude ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands, individually owned whether alienable and disposa
ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ran

stains the view that ancestral domains and all resources found therein shall serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity.
be sold, disposed or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable traditional resource rights.

n of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights shall include:

water traditionally and actually occupied by ICCs/IPs, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improveme

reof, right to develop, control and use lands and territories traditionally occupied, owned, or used; to manage and conserve natur
und therein; the right to negotiate the terms and conditions for the exploration of natural resources in the areas for the purpose of
e formulation and implementation of any project, government or private, that will affect or impact upon the ancestral domains an
nterference with, alienation and encroachment upon these rights; x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

Vol. II, p. 42 (1983); see also Articles 427 and 428, Civil Code.

the Bicameral Conference Committee on National Cultural Communities regarding House Bill No. 9125 refers to Section 8 but

Cultural Communities, October 9, 1997, XIV-2.

]) thus: Jose Fianza, et al., members of the Igorot tribe, claimed that he and his predecessors had, for more than fifty years prior
1901 and proceeded to locate mining claims according to the mining laws of the United States. The Philippine Supreme Court h
on their mining claims for a period equivalent to ten years, evidence of such possession and working of the claims for such perio
 ous peoples were the rightful owners of the contested parcel of land, stating that the possession and working by Fianza, et al. of
aim of title.

that "The supreme ownership of mines throughout the kingdom belong to the crown and the king. They shall not be exploited e
ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 2nd ed. [1956], p. 14, citing the unpublished case of Lawrence v. Garduno, G.R. No. 19042.)

law in force at the time of the cession of the Philippines to the United States contained a similar declaration, thus:

hem those of inflammable nature) belongs to the state, and they cannot be disposed of without an authorization issued by the Sup

ng the States ownership over minerals:

lic use, is employed in some public service, or in the development of the national wealth, such as walls, fortresses, and other wo

under it and may build, plant or excavate thereon, as he may see fit, subject to any existing easements and to the provisions of the

o the concept of State-ownership of natural resources. However, the open and free exploration, occupation and purchase of mine

ands, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration, occupation and purchase, and the la
d as agricultural lands under the provisions of this Act, but not patented, mineral deposits have been found, the working of such
Islands such additional sum or sums as will make the total amount paid for the mineral claim or claims in which said deposits a

elonging to the State during both the Spanish and American rule in the Philippines, viz:

wnership as (1) the waters springing continuously or intermittently from lands of the public domain; (2) the waters of rivers; and

coves, inlets, creeks, roadsteads, bays and ports

to the full width recognized by international law. The state provides for and regulates the police supervision and the uses of this

f forest lands in Supreme Court decisions (See Director of Forestry vs. Munoz, 23 SCRA 1183, 1198-1199 [1968]; Director of L
 and 1987 Constitutions. Section 1, Article XII of the 1935 Constitution declared:

als, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to
of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease or concession at the time of the inaugu
r lease for the exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five year
ch cases beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant.

neral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. Wi
sion, or lease for the exploration, development, exploitation, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a p
velopment of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

, pp. 494-495.

urces, September 14, 1934, reproduced in Laurel (ed.), Proceedings of the Philippine Constitutional Convention, Vol. VII, pp. 46

inerals oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are ow
hall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into c
tizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, an
he grant.

session of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights shall include:

of, right to develop, control and use lands and territories traditionally occupied, owned, or used; to manage and conserve natur
ces found therein; the right to negotiate the terms and conditions for the exploration of natural resources in the areas for
nt participation in the formulation and implementation of any project, government or private, that will affect or impact upon the
ernment to prevent any interference with, alienation and encroachment upon these rights;

priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains. A
s renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years: Provided, That a formal and written agreement is entered into with the ICC
and take appropriate action to safeguard the rights of the ICCs/IPs under the same contract.

gencies shall henceforth be strictly enjoined from issuing, renewing, or granting any concession, license or lease, or entering into
er a field-based investigation is conducted by the Ancestral Domains Office of the area concerned: Provided, That no certificat
agency or government-owned or controlled corporation may issue new concession, license, lease, or production sharing agreeme
ied the requirement of this consultation process.
 , which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cov
purposes. The Indigenous peoples concerned shall be given the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve su
e in writing. The consent of the Indigenous peoples should be arrived at in accordance with its customary laws without prejudice
ordance with the program for technology transfer; Provided, further, That no Indigenous peoples shall be displaced or relocated f

Law, 100.

Am Jur 2d Constitutional Law, 100.

y Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, ba

er applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition and utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public d
ands.

al estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.

communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide sup
lop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreig

utional Law, 100.

942 (the Philippine Mining Act of 1995).

vities which rely heavily on manual labor using simple implements and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining equi

mining area without the prior consent of the cultural communities concerned: Provided, That, if ancestral lands are declared as p
6).

ice of the President and shall be composed of seven (7) Commissioners belonging to the ICCs/IPs, one (1) of whom shall be the
missioners shall be appointed specifically from each of the following ethnographic areas, Region I and the Cordilleras; Region I
ral Mindanao: Provided, That at least two (2) of the seven (7) Commissioners shall be women.

have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs. Provided, however, That no such dispute shall be bro
who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition

e adverse claims within the ancestral domains as delineated in the survey plan, and which can not be resolved, the NCIP shall he
garding the traditional boundaries of their respective ancestral domains, customary process shall be followed. The NCIP shall pr
n dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement and interpretation of this Act may be broug

sages, customs and practices traditionally and continually recognized, accepted and observed by respective ICCs/IPs;
Cs/IPs of the land where the conflict arises shall be applied first with respect to property rights, claims and ownerships, heredita

/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute.

CCs/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute.

ce.

hall not be countenanced.180

peoples, local systems of settling disputes of indigenous peoples, local systems of settling disputes through their councils of datu

and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

 SEPARATE OPINION

erwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act. Petitioners do not complain of any injury as a result of the application of the

he determination of such proceedings as are established by law for the protection or enforcement of rights, or the prevention, red
suffered by them as a result of the enforcement of the law, but only to settle what they believe to be the doubtful character of the
h legislation. Such judgment cannot be executed as it amounts to no more than an expression of opinion upon the validity of the

ne in the abstract whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the par
placed in the keeping of this Court, it uniformly begins with the phrase "all cases. . . ."

abuse of discretion was inserted in Art. VIII, 1 not really to give the judiciary a roving commission to right any wrong it perceiv

g the submission of the Solicitor General, formulated the following test of its jurisdiction in such cases:

Court not that the Presidents decision is correct and that public safety was endangered by the rebellion and justified the suspensi

l law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It is noteworthy that Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, wh
versies without upsetting the balance of power among the three branches of the government and erecting, as it were, the judiciary
we to assume jurisdiction and decide wholesale the constitutional validity of the IPRA contrary to the established rule that a party

eedom of expression. In such instance, the overbreadth doctrine permits a party to challenge the validity of a statute even though
applied" is permitted in the interest of preventing a "chilling" effect on freedom of expression. But in other cases, even if it is fo
ity is not possible.

without jurisdiction but also to run the risk that, in adjudicating abstract or hypothetical questions, its decision will be based on sp
intrude into the domain of legislation. Constitutional adjudication, it cannot be too often repeated, cannot take place in a vacuum

a "galling cop out"4 or an "advocacy of timidity, let alone isolationism."5 To decline the exercise of jurisdiction in this case is no
e of the District of Columbia only to declare in the end that after all mandamus did not lie, because 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1

that there can be no doubt of this power of our Court, we in this country have enshrined its principle in Art. VIII, 1. Now, the e
ns7 of this Court.

w timidity but respect for the judgment of a coequal department of government whose acts, unless shown to be clearly repugnant
ted to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the c
troversy between individuals.9 Until, therefore, an actual case is brought to test the constitutionality of the IPRA, the presumptio

in Tanada v. Tuvera,11 that "when the question is one of public right and the object of mandamus to procure the enforcement of
result, it being sufficient that he is a citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws." On the basis of this statemen

General to call a special election on the ground that it was his duty to do so. The ruling was that he did not have such a duty. On
o publish all decrees and other presidential issuances in the Official Gazette placed petitioners in danger of violating those decree
A 1 (1981); Mitra v. Commission on Elections, 104 SCRA 59 (1981).

il. 806 (1955).

SEPARATE OPINION
(Concurring and Dissenting)

he procedural or preliminary issues. In particular, I agree that petitioners have shown an actual case or controversy involving at l
of this controversy have been fully presented and impressively argued by the parties. Moreover, prohibition and mandamus are
deed, it would then be a galling copout for us to dismiss it on mere technical or procedural grounds.

es, which constitute the core of this case. Specifically, I submit that Republic Act (RA) No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indige

, waters, x x x and other natural resources" which, under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, "are owned by the State" and
g statement places substantial portions of Philippine territory outside the scope of the Philippine Constitution and beyond the co
atural wealth.

evelopment, and utilization of natural resources," which the Constitution expressly requires to "be under the full control and supe

heir ancestral lands, but such mandate is "subject to the provisions of this Constitution."4 I concede that indigenous cultural com
rces. Such privileges, however, must be subject to the fundamental law.

ress in its wisdom may grant preferences and prerogatives to our marginalized brothers and sisters, subject to the irreducible cav
of nationhood. I cannot, however, agree to legitimize perpetual inequality of access to the nation's wealth or to stamp the Court'
must conform.5 It is the people's quintessential act of sovereignty, embodying the principles upon which the State and the govern
on is a compact made by and among the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner.7 Truly, the Philippine Cons

ttedly professes a laudable intent. It was primarily enacted pursuant to the state policy enshrined in our Constitution to "recogniz
n directly afoul of our fundamental law from which it claims origin and authority. More specifically, Sections 3(a) and (b), 5, 6, 7

country in the sixteenth century. Under this concept, the entire earthly territory known as the Philippine Islands was acquired an
private ownership of real property was recognized upon the showing of (1) a title deed; or (2) ancient possession in the concept o

latter assumed administration of the Philippines and succeeded to the property rights of the Spanish Crown. But under the Philip
are found."10 To a certain extent, private individuals were entitled to own, exploit and dispose of mineral resources and other righ

ratified our first Constitution. Instead, the said Constitution embodied the Regalian Doctrine, which more definitively declared
further exploration, development and utilization of natural resources, both as to who might be entitled to undertake such activitie

nerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belon
f which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the
pment, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for anot
nd the limit of the grant."

e XIV of the 1973 Constitution, state:

forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the excepti
opment, exploitation, utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renew
may be the measure and the limit of the grant.

esources of the Philippines shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centu
ncial, technical, management, or other forms of assistance with any foreign person or entity for the exploration, development, ex

forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the St
rvision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or produc
ng twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided b

sive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
 well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons.

l or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils a
development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

ion, within thirty days from its execution."

e desire to preserve the nation's wealth in the hands of the Filipinos themselves. Nationalism was fervent at the time, and our con
nts in support of the provision are encapsulated by Aruego as follows: "[T]he natural resources, particularly the mineral resource

rgy and other natural resources belonged to the Philippine State, the Commonwealth absolutely prohibited the alienation of these
stitution even goes further by declaring that such activities "shall be under the full control and supervision of the State." Addition

nd national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they m
for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hec

mains and lands are outside the coverage of public domain; and that these properties - including forests, bodies of water, minerals

d, no one is exempt from its all-encompassing provisions. Unlike the 1935 Charter, which was subject to "any existing right, gra
ve to give up, under certain conditions, even vested rights of ownership.

he State may intervene to enable it to extract the minerals in the exercise of its sovereign prerogative. The land is converted into
nsation for the loss sustained.

d patentees have the exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of the located claim, their rights are not absolute or strictly

be set aside or ignored by IPRA, however well-intentioned it may be. The perceived lack of understanding of the cultural minor
not to be enfolded by statutes on perfecting land titles, ICCs/IPs cannot now maintain their ownership of lands and domains by in
trys resources.

rship of public domains and natural resources to ICCs/IPs. "Rather, it recognizes and mandates respect for the rights of indigeno
on that exempts such lands and domains from its coverage. Quite the contrary, it declares that all lands of the public domain and

ands not acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant under laws, orders or decrees promulgated by the Spanish

m that which is defined in Articles 427 and 428 of the Civil Code. They maintain that "[t]here are variations among ethnolinguist
ept of trusteeship.'"

operty for the common but nonetheless exclusive and perpetual benefit of its members, without the attributes of alienation or dis
of private respondents claims simply makes them repugnant to basic fairness and equality.
 -Spanish conquest. I should say that, at the time, their claims to such lands and domains was limited to the surfaces thereof since

s, then I have no disagreement. Indeed, consistent with the Constitution is IPRAs Section 5719- without the too-broad definition

Constitution vests the ownership of natural resources, not in colonial masters, but in all the Filipino people. As the protector of th

our 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Its ratio should be understood as referring only to a means by which public agricultural

our three Constitutions had taken effect, the Court rejected a cultural minority member's registration of land under CA 141, Sect

d, as to include even forest reserves as susceptible to private appropriation, is to unconstitutionally apply such provision. For, bo
or commercial, residential and resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated. The new Consti

registration, and its inclusion in a title nullifies that title. To be sure, the defense of indefeasiblity of a certificate of title issued pu
t land being void ab initio."

ound within ancestral domains. However, a simple reading of the very wordings of the law belies this statement.

comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or pos
ment x x x. It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether a

tural resources found therein. And Section 7 guarantees recognition and protection of their rights of ownership and possession o

mains are the ICCs/IPs private but community property which belongs to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed
t ownership, as understood under the Civil Code; it adds perpetual exclusivity. This means that while ICCs/IPs could own vast a

ssessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial x x x, under claims of individual o
ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral lands." Such ownership need not be by virtue of a certificate of title, but

re specifically the declaration that the State owns all lands of the public domain, minerals and natural resources none of which
icultural purposes by a positive act of the government.26 Mere possession or utilization thereof, however long, does not automat
nd registration proceedings have the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land thus sought to be registered forms part
Spanish Government or by possessory information title, or any other means for the proper acquisition of public lands, the proper
s of law other than factual evidence of possession and title."28
 nitions and should not be construed independently of the other provisions of the law. But, precisely, a definition is "a statement
he same term should be interpreted as excluding one or more of the enumerated items in its definition. For that would be mislead
ncestral domains, then it means that ICCs/IPs can own natural resources.

th no specific limits, likewise belongs to ICCs/IPs. I say that this theory directly contravenes the Constitution. Such outlandish c

res of alienable public land, whether by purchase, homestead or grant. More than that, but not exceeding 500 hectares, they may

mere definitions, they could cover vast tracts of the nation's territory. The properties under the assailed law cover everything hel
[them] but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home range

used up the resources of a certain area, they move to another place or go back to one they used to occupy. From year to year, a g
n or land, several thousands of hectares of land may yet be additionally delineated as their private property.

solidated title, but "on a collective stake to the right to claim what their forefathers secured for them when they first set foot on o
This long history of occupation is the basis of their claim to their ancestral lands.33

ral domains; and over 10 thousand hectares, as ancestral lands.34 Based on ethnographic surveys, the solicitor general estimates t
ne third of the country's land will be concentrated among 12 million Filipinos constituting 110 ICCs,36 while over 60 million oth
ncome, and wealth" among Filipinos.

utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State." The State may (1) directly undertake
owever, shall not exceed 25 years, renewable for the same period and under terms and conditions as may be provided by law.

r as natural resources found within their territories are concerned. Pursuant to their rights of ownership and possession, they may
Cs/IPs who may do so only for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for a like period.39 Consistent with the Constitution, t

tion of natural resources,40 a right vested by the Constitution only in the State. Congress, through IPRA, has in effect abdicated i

al resources and cooperative fish farming, I absolutely have no objection. These undertakings are certainly allowed under the thi

ship of ancestral lands and domains and the natural resources therein; and (2) the ICCs/IPs' control of the exploration, developm

ounts to undue deprivation of private property

other forms of exaction

ttlements of disputes over their rights and claims

nous Peoples (NCIP) violate the due process and equal protection clauses

heir will

o longer of "transcendental importance," in view of my contention that the two major IPRA propositions are based on unconstitu

nd programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social

ations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain."

) the provisions of the 1987 Constitution and (2) national development policies and programs.

t, however, give Congress any license to accord them rights that the Constitution withholds from the rest of the Filipino people.
al wealth to them, to the exclusion of other Filipino citizens who have chosen to live and abide by our previous and present Cons

everse discrimination." In seeking to improve their lot, it would be doing so at the expense of the majority of the Filipino people

, however disadvantaged they may have been. Neither can a just society be approximated by maiming the healthy to place them

vileges that are open to all and by preventing the powerful from exploiting and oppressing them. This is the essence of social jus

Sections 3(a) and (b), 5, 6, 7(a) and (b), 8 and related provisions of RA 8371.

all Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343, 365, July 14, 1989; Antonio v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368 (1949).

A 106, 123-24, March 19, 1997; Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52, 60, May 14, 1991.
Under the 1987 Constitution Revisited," Journal of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Vol. XXV, Nos. 3 & 4 (1999), p. 51.

al overtones; ownership is vested in the State, instead. (Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippine

, p. 1010.

priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains. x

r predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the publ
amended by R.A. No. 3872, section 1, approved June 18, 1964)."

elonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownersh
ted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other volu
ral lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bod
ence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators."

sed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or th
ement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by governm
ourt, March 2, 1993; Director of Lands v. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296, December 17, 1990; Sunbeam Convenience Foods, Inc. v. Co

als, supra.

Court of Appeals, supra.

ctor in the Mindanao Conflict," Human Rights Agenda, Vol. 5, Issue No. 7, July & August 2000, pp. 6-7.

," Proceedings of the 6th Upland NGO Consultative Conference, 23-27 August 1998, p. 30.

nter through the President into "agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistanc

tional.