G.R. No.

193964, December 02, 2015 Thereafter, the NCIP issued an Order dated
20 October 2006 and directing the issuance
ENGINEER BEN Y. LIM, RBL FISHING and service of summons, and setting the
CORPORATION, PALAWAN preliminary conference and initial hearing on
AQUACULTURE CORPORATION, AND the prayer for the issuance of a Temporary
PENINSULA SHIPYARD Restraining Order on 22 November 2006 and
CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HON. the conduct of an ocular inspection of the
SULPICIO G. GAMOSA, OFFICER-IN- subject area on the following day, 23
CHARGE, NCIP REGIONAL HEARING November 2006.
OFFICE, REGION IV AND TAGBANUA
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITY OF Despite a motion to dismiss being a
BARANGAY BUENAVISTA, CORON, prohibited pleading under the NCIP
PALAWAN, AS REPRESENTED BY Administrative Circular No. 1-03, petitioners
FERNANDO P. AGUIDO, ERNESTO CINCO, moved to dismiss the petition on the
BOBENCIO MOSQUERA, JURRY following grounds:
CARPIANO, VICTOR BALBUTAN,
NORDITO ALBERTO, EDENG PESRO, 1) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
CLAUDINA BAQUID, NONITA SALVA, of the petition because [petitioners] are not
AND NANCHITA ALBERTO, Respondents.
members of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples;
DECISION
   
PEREZ, J.:
2) Lack of jurisdiction over the persons of
[petitioners], because summons were served
While we recognize the rights of our
by mail rather than by personal service;
Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and Indigenous
Cultural Communities (ICCs) as determined    
in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA),
we delineate, in this case, the jurisdiction of 3) Lack of cause of action, because there is no
the National Commission on Indigenous allegation in the petition or document
Peoples (NCIP) as provided in Section 661 of attached thereto showing that [respondents]
the IPRA. were indeed authorized by the purported
Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community,
Assailed in this Petition for Review and no Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of has as yet been issued over the claim; [and]
Court is the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 98268 which denied the    
petition for certiorari of petitioners Engr. Ben 4) Violation of the rule against forum shopping
Y. Lim, RBL Fishing Corporation, Palawan because [respondents] have already filed
Aquaculture Corporation, and Peninsula criminal cases also based on the same
Shipyard Corporation. Affirmed, then, is the
alleged acts before the Municipal Trial Court
Resolution3 of the NCIP in NCIP Case No.
RHO 4-01-2006.
of Coron-Busuanga.5
Not contented with their filing of a Motion to
Respondent Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Dismiss, petitioners, by way of special
Community of Barangay Buenavista, Coron, appearance, filed a Motion to Suspend
Palawan, represented by individual Proceedings, arguing that "considering the
respondents Fernando P. Aguido, Ernesto nature of the issues raised [in the Motion to
Cinco, Bobencio Mosquera, Jurry Carpiano, Dismiss], particularly, the issue on
Victor Balbutan, Nordito Alberto, Edeng jurisdiction, it is imperative that the [Motion
Pesro, Claudina Baquid, Nonita Salva, and to Dismiss] be resolved first before other
Nanchita Alberto, filed a petition before the proceedings could be conducted in the instant
NCIP against petitioners for "Violation of case."6
Rights to Free and Prior and Informed
Consent (FPIC) and Unauthorized and On 30 November 2006, the NCIP issued a
Unlawful Intrusion with Prayer for the Resolution7 denying the motion to dismiss.
Issuance of Preliminary Injunction and While affirming that a Motion to Dismiss is
Temporary Restraining Order."4 prohibited under Section 29 of the Rules on
Pleadings, Practice and Procedure before the
NCIP, the NCIP squarely ruled that: (1) it had
jurisdiction over the petition filed by SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
respondents; (2) it acquired jurisdiction over PETITION x x x;
the persons of petitioners; (3) it was
premature to rule on the issue of lack of II. WHETHER OR NOT THE
cause of action; and (4) respondents did not HONORABLE COURT OF
violate the rule on forum shopping.8 APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS
ERRORS IN HOLDING THAT x x
After the denial of their motion for x THE [NCIP] ACQUIRED
reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition JURISDICTION OVER THE
for certiorari before the appellate court, PERSONS OF THE
seeking to reverse, annul and set aside the PETITIONERS; and
NCIP's twin resolutions for being tainted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack III. WHETHER OR NOT THE
or excess of jurisdiction. HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
As previously stated, the Court of Appeals HOLDING THAT x x x
denied the petition for certiorari and affirmed RESPONDENTS HAVE CAUSE/S
the resolutions of the NCIP. The appellate OF ACTION AGAINST THE
court echoed the NCIP's stance that from the PETITIONERS.9
wording of Section 66 of the IPRA, the NCIP
was bestowed with an all-encompassing Notably, petitioners have dropped their issue
grant of jurisdiction over all claims and that respondents are guilty of forum
disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs and that shopping.
the requirement in the proviso contained in
the section, i.e., obtaining a certification from At the outset, we note that none of the
the Council of Elders/Leaders that the parties petitioners, the NCIP, and the appellate court
had exhausted all remedies provided under have proffered an argument, and opined, on
their customary law prior to the filing of an the specific nature of the jurisdiction of the
action, applied only to instances where both NCIP, whether such is primary and
parties were members of an ICC/IP. concurrent with courts of general jurisdiction,
and/or original and exclusive, to the
The NCIP also cited Section 14 of its own exclusion of regular courts.
Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure
Before the NCIP which provides exceptions to In the main, petitioners argue that the NCIP
the requirement of exhaustion of does not have jurisdiction over the petition
administrative remedies under customary filed by respondents because they
laws, such as where one of the parties is: (1) (petitioners) are non-IPs/ICCs. Essentially,
either a public or private corporation, they interpret the jurisdiction of the NCIP as
partnership, association or juridical person or limited to claims and disputes involving rights
a public officer or employee and the dispute of IPs/ICCs where both opposing parties are
is in connection with the performance of his IPs/ICCs.
official functions; and (2) a non-IP/ICC or
does not belong to the same IP/ICC. In all, On the other hand, the NCIP and the
the Court of Appeals affirmed the NCIP's appellate court rely mainly on the wording of
resolution that when a claim or dispute Section 66 of the IPRA and the averred
involves rights of the IPs/ICCs, the NCIP has purpose for the law's enactment, "to fulfill the
jurisdiction over the case regardless of constitutional mandate of protecting the
whether the opposing party is a non-IP/ICC. rights of the indigenous cultural communities
to their ancestral land and to correct a grave
Adamant, petitioners appeal to us by a historical injustice to our indigenous
petition for review on certiorari, echoing the people."10 According to the two tribunals,
same issues raised before the appellate "[a]ny interpretation that would restrict the
court: applicability of the IPRA law exclusively to its
members would certainly leave them open to
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE oppression and exploitation by
HONORABLE COURT OF outsiders."11 The NCIP and the appellate
APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN court maintain that Section 66 does not
HOLDING THAT x x x THE [NCIP distinguish between a dispute among
HAS] JURISDICTION OVER THE members of ICCs/IPs and a dispute involving
ICC/IP members and non-members. Thus,
there is no reason to draw a distinction and Specifically, the definitive issue herein boils
limit the NCIP's jurisdiction over "all claims down to whether the NCIP's jurisdiction is
and disputes involving rights of limited to cases where both parties are
ICCs/IPs."12 Effectively, even without ICCs/IPs or primary and concurrent with
asseverating it, the two tribunals interpret regular courts, and/or original and exclusive,
the statutory grant of jurisdiction to the NCIP to the exclusion of the regular courts, on all
as primary, original and exclusive, in all matters involving rights of ICCs/IPs.
cases and instances where the claim or
dispute involves rights of IPs/ICCs, without We are thus impelled to discuss jurisdiction
regard to whether one of the parties is non- and the different classes thereof.
IP/ICC.
Jurisdiction is the power and authority,
In addition, the NCIP promulgated its rules conferred by the Constitution and by statute,
and regulations such as NCIP Administrative to hear and decide a case.13 The authority to
Circular No. 1-03 dated 9 April 2003, known decide a cause at all is what makes up
as the "Rules on Pleadings, Practice and jurisdiction.
Procedure Before the NCIP," and
Administrative Circular No. 1, Series of 2014, Section 66 of the IPRA, the law conferring
known as "The 2014 Revised Rules of jurisdiction on the NCIP, reads:
Procedure before the National Commission on Sec. 66. Jurisdiction of the NCIP. - The
Indigenous Peoples." Sections 5 and 1, NCIP, through its regional offices, shall
respectively of both the 2003 and 2014 have jurisdiction over all claims and
Administrative Circular, Rule III, provide for disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs:
the jurisdiction of the NCIP Regional Hearing Provided, however, That no such dispute
Officer (RHO), thus: shall be brought to the NCIP unless the
Jurisdiction of the NCIP. - The NCIP through parties have exhausted all remedies
its Regional Hearing Offices shall exercise provided under their customary laws. For
jurisdiction over all claims and disputes this purpose, a certification shall be issued by
involving rights of ICCs/IPs and all cases the Council of Elders/Leaders who
pertaining to the implementation, participated in the attempt to settle the
enforcement, and interpretation of R.A. 8371, dispute that the same has not been resolved,
including but not limited to the following: which certification shall be a condition
(1) Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of precedent to the filing of a petition with the
the Regional Hearing Office (RHO): NCIP. (Emphasis supplied).
The conferment of such jurisdiction is
a. Cases involving disputes and consistent with state policy averred in the
controversies over ancestral IPRA which recognizes and promotes all the
lands/domains of ICCs/IPs; rights of ICCs/IPs within the framework of
the constitution. Such is likewise reflected in
b. Cases involving violations of the the mandate of the NCIP to "protect and
requirement of free and prior promote the interest and wellbeing of the
and informed consent of ICCs/IPs with due regard to their beliefs,
ICCs/IPs; customs, traditions and[,] institutions".14

c. Actions for enforcement of In connection thereto, from Bank of

decisions of ICCs/IPs involving Commerce v. Planters Development
violations of customary laws or Bank,15 we learned that the provisions of the
desecration of ceremonial sites, enabling statute are the yardsticks by which
sacred places, or rituals; the Court would measure the quantum of
quasi-judicial powers an administrative
d. Actions for agency may exercise, as defined in the
redemption/reconveyance enabling act of such agency.
under Section 8(b) of R.A.
8371; and Plainly, the NCIP is the "primary government
agency responsible for the formulation and
Such other cases analogous to the foregoing. implementation of policies, plans and
We first dispose of the primordial question on programs to promote and protect the rights
and well-being of the ICCs/IPs and the
the nature and scope of the NCIP's
jurisdiction as provided in the IPRA. recognition of their ancestral domains as well
as their rights thereto."16 Nonetheless, the Thus, despite the language that the NCIP
creation of such government agency does shall have jurisdiction over all claims and
not per se grant it primary and/or exclusive disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs, we
and original jurisdiction, excluding the regular cannot be confined to that first alone and
courts from taking cognizance and exercising therefrom deduce primary sole NCIP
jurisdiction over cases which may involve jurisdiction over all ICCs/IPs claims and
rights of ICCs/IPs. disputes to the exclusion of the regular
courts. If it were the intention of the
Recently, in Unduran et al. v. Aberasturi et legislative that: (1) the NCIP exercise
al.,17 we ruled that Section 66 of the IPRA primary jurisdiction over, and/or (2) the
does not endow the NCIP with primary and/or regular courts be excluded from taking
exclusive and original jurisdiction over all cognizance of, claims and disputes involving
claims and disputes involving rights of rights of ICCs/IPs, the legislature could have
ICCs/IPs. Based on the qualifying proviso, we easily done so as in other instances
held that the NCIP's jurisdiction over such conferring primary, and original and exclusive
claims and disputes occur only when they jurisdiction to a specific administrative body.
arise between or among parties belonging to We will revert to this point shortly but find it
the same ICC/IP. Since two of the defendants pertinent to first discuss the classes of
therein were not IPs/ICCs, the regular courts jurisdiction.
had jurisdiction over the complaint in that
case. Primary jurisdiction, also known as the
doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and
In his concurring opinion in Unduran, Justice authority vested by the Constitution or by
Jose P. Perez submits that the jurisdiction of statute upon an administrative body to act
the NCIP ought to be definitively drawn to upon a matter by virtue of its specific
settle doubts that still linger due to the competence.19 The doctrine of primary
implicit affirmation done in The City jurisdiction prevents the court from
Government ofBaguio City, et al. v. Atty. arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve
Masweng, et al.18 of the NCIP's jurisdiction a controversy which falls under the
over cases where one of the parties are not jurisdiction of a tribunal possessed with
ICCs/IPs. special competence.20 In one occasion, we
have held that regular courts cannot or
In Unduran and as in this case, we are hard should not determine a controversy involving
pressed to declare a primary and/or exclusive a question which is within the jurisdiction of
and original grant of jurisdiction to the NCIP the administrative tribunal before the
over all claims and disputes involving rights question is resolved by the administrative
of ICCs/IPs where there is no clear tribunal, where the question demands the
intendment by the legislature. exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience,
Significantly, the language of Section 66 is and services of the administrative tribunal to
only clear on the nature of the claim and determine technical and intricate matters of
dispute as involving rights of ICCs/IPs, but fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to
ambiguous and indefinite in other respects. comply with the premises of the regulatory
While using the word "all" to quantify the statute administered.21 The objective of the
number of the "claims and disputes" as doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a
covering each and every claim and dispute court in determining whether it should refrain
involving rights of ICCs/IPs, Section 66 from exercising its jurisdiction until after an
unmistakably contains a proviso, which on its administrative agency has determined some
face restrains or limits the initial generality of question arising in the proceeding before the
the grant of jurisdiction. court.22

Unduran lists the elements of the grant of Additionally, primary jurisdiction does not
jurisdiction to the NCIP: (1) the claim and necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction.23 It
dispute involve the right of ICCs/IPs; and (2) applies where a claim is originally cognizable
both parties have exhausted all remedies in the courts and comes into play whenever
provided under their customary laws. Both enforcement of the claim requires the
elements must be present prior to the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory
invocation and exercise of the NCIP's scheme, has been placed within the special
jurisdiction. competence of an administrative body; in
such case, the judicial process is suspended
pending referral of such issues to the
administrative body for its view.24 In some Pursuant to the authority given to the
instances, the Constitution and statutes grant Ombudsman by the Constitution and the
the administrative body primary jurisdiction, Ombudsman Act of 1989 to lay down its own
concurrent with either similarly authorized rules and procedure, the Office of the
government agencies or the regular courts, Ombudsman promulgated Administrative
such as the distinct kinds of jurisdiction Order No. 8, dated November 8, 1990,
bestowed by the Constitution and statutes on entitled, Clarifying and Modifying Certain
the Ombudsman. Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman, to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The case of Honasan II v. The Panel of

Investigating Prosecutors of the Department A complaint filed in or taken cognizance of by
of Justice25 delineated primary and the Office of the Ombudsman charging any
concurrent jurisdiction as opposed to original public officer or employee including those in
and exclusive jurisdiction vested by both the government-owned or controlled
Constitution and statutes26 on the corporations, with an act or omission alleged
Ombudsman concurrent, albeit primary, with to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient is
the Department of Justice. an Ombudsman case. Such a complaint may
be the subject of criminal or administrative
Paragraph (1) of Section 13, Article XI of the proceedings, or both.
Constitution, viz.:
SEC. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall For purposes of investigation and
have the following powers, functions, and prosecution, Ombudsman cases involving
duties: criminal offenses may be subdivided into two
1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by classes, to wit: (1) those cognizable by the
any person, any act or omission of any public Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling under
official, employee, office or agency, when the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The
such act or omission appears to be illegal, difference between the two, aside from the
unjust, improper, or inefficient. category of the courts wherein they are filed,
is on the authority to investigate as
does not exclude other government agencies distinguished from the authority to
tasked by law to investigate and prosecute prosecute, such cases.
cases involving public officials. If it were the
intention of the framers of the 1987 The power to investigate or conduct a
Constitution, they would have expressly preliminary investigation on any Ombudsman
declared the exclusive conferment of the case may be exercised by an investigator or
power to the Ombudsman. Instead, prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman,
paragraph (8) of the same Section 13 of the or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or
Constitution provides: their assistance, either in their regular
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and capacities or as deputized Ombudsman
exercise such other powers or perform such prosecutors.
functions or duties as may be provided by
law Accordingly, Congress enacted R.A. 6770, The prosecution of cases cognizable by the
otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of Sandiganbayan shall be under the direct
1989." Section 15 thereof provides: exclusive control and supervision of the
Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman. In cases
Office of the Ombudsman shall have the cognizable by the regular Courts, the control
following powers, functions and duties: and supervision by the Office of the
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or Ombudsman is only in Ombudsman cases in
on complaint by any person, any act or the sense defined above. The law recognizes
omission of any public officer or employee, a concurrence of jurisdiction between the
office or agency, when such act or omission Office of the Ombudsman and other
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or investigative agencies of the government in
inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over the prosecution of cases cognizable by
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, regular courts.
in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it It is noteworthy that as early as 1990,
may take over, at any stage, from any the Ombudsman had properly
investigatory agency of the government, the differentiated the authority to
investigation of such cases. investigate cases from the authority to
prosecute cases. It is on this note that preliminary investigation of offenses
the Court will first dwell on the nature or cognizable by the Sandiganbayan to all
extent of the authority of the investigatory agencies of the government
Ombudsman to investigate cases. duly authorized to conduct a preliminary
Whence, focus is directed to the second investigation under Section 2, Rule 112 of
sentence of paragraph (1), Section 15 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure with
the Ombudsman Act which specifically the only qualification that the Ombudsman
provides that the Ombudsman has may take over at any stage of such
primary jurisdiction over cases investigation in the exercise of his primary
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, and, jurisdiction.
in the exercise of this primary
jurisdiction, it may take over, at any A little over a month later, the Court,
stage, from any investigating agency of in Deloso vs. Domingo, pronounced that the
the government, the investigation of Ombudsman, under the authority of Section
such cases. 13 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, has
jurisdiction to investigate any crime
That the power of the Ombudsman to committed by a public official, elucidating
investigate offenses involving public thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

officers or employees is not exclusive

but is concurrent with other similarly As protector of the people, the office of the
authorized agencies of the government Ombudsman has the power, function and
such as the provincial, city and state duty to "act promptly on complaints filed in
prosecutors has long been settled in any form or manner against public officials"
several decisions of the Court. (Emphasis (Sec. 12) and to "investigate x x x any act or
supplied) omission of any public official x x x when
such act or omission appears to be illegal,
In Cojuangco, Jr. v. Presidential Commission unjust, improper or inefficient." (Sec. 1[3]).
on Good Government, decided in 1990, the The Ombudsman is also empowered to
Court expressly declared: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary "direct the officer concerned," in this case the
Special Prosecutor, "to take appropriate
A reading of the foregoing provision of the action against a public official x x x and to
Constitution does not show that the power of recommend his prosecution" (Sec. 1[3]).
investigation including preliminary
investigation vested on the Ombudsman is The clause "any [illegal] act or omission of
exclusive. any public official" is broad enough to
embrace any crime committed by a public
Interpreting the primary jurisdiction of the official. The law does not qualify the nature of
Ombudsman under Section 15 (1) of the the illegal act or omission of the public official
Ombudsman Act, the Court held in said or employee that the Ombudsman may
case:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary investigate. It does not require that the act
or omission be related to or be connected
Under Section 15 (1) of Republic Act No. with or arise from, the performance of official
6770 aforecited, the Ombudsman has duty. Since the law does not distinguish,
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by neither should we.
the Sandiganbayan so that it may take over
at any stage from any investigatory agency The reason for the creation of the
of the government, the investigation of such Ombudsman in the 1987 Constitution and for
cases. The authority of the Ombudsman to the grant to it of broad investigative
investigate offenses involving public officers authority, is to insulate said office from the
or employees is not exclusive but is long tentacles of officialdom that are able to
concurrent with other similarly authorized penetrate judges' and fiscals' offices, and
agencies of the government. Such others involved in the prosecution of erring
investigatory agencies referred to include the public officials, and through the exertion of
PCGG and the provincial and city prosecutors official pressure and influence, quash, delay,
and their assistants, the state prosecutors or dismiss investigations into malfeasances
and the judges of the municipal trial courts and misfeasances committed by public
and municipal circuit trial court. officers. It was deemed necessary, therefore,
to create a special office to
In other words the provision of the law has investigate all criminal complaints against
opened up the authority to conduct public officers regardless of whether or not
the acts or omissions complained of are at all. In Deloso v. Domingo; 191 SCRA 545
related to or arise from the performance of (1990), the Court held that the Ombudsman
the duties of their office. The Ombudsman has authority to investigate charges of illegal
Act makes perfectly clear that the jurisdiction acts or omissions on the part of any public
of the Ombudsman encompasses "all kinds of official, i.e.; any crime imputed to a public
malfeasance, misfeasance, and non- official. It must, however, be pointed out that
feasance that have been committed by any the authority of the Ombudsman to
officer or employee as mentioned in Section investigate "any [illegal] act or omission of
13 hereof, during his tenure of office" (Sec. any public official" (191 SCRA 550) is not an
16, R.A. 6770). exclusive authority but rather a shared or
concurrent authority in respect of the offense
Indeed, the labors of the constitutional charged, i.e.; the crime of sedition. Thus, the
commission that created the Ombudsman as non-involvement of the office of the
a special body to investigate erring public Ombudsman in the present case does not
officials would be wasted if its jurisdiction have any adverse legal consequence upon
were confined to the investigation of minor the authority of the panel of prosecutors to
and less grave offenses arising from, or file and prosecute the information or
related to, the duties of public office, but amended information.
would exclude those grave and terrible
crimes that spring from abuses of official In fact, other investigatory agencies of the
powers and prerogatives, for it is the government such as the Department of
investigation of the latter where the need for Justice in connection with the charge of
an independent, fearless, and honest sedition, and the Presidential Commission on
investigative body, like the Ombudsman, is Good Government, in ill gotten wealth cases,
greatest. may conduct the investigation.

At first blush, there appears to be conflicting In Natividad v. Felix, a 1994 case, where the
views in the rulings of the Court in petitioner municipal mayor contended that it
the Cojuangco, Jr. case and the Deloso case. is the Ombudsman and not the provincial
However, the contrariety is more apparent fiscal who has the authority to conduct a
than real. In subsequent cases, the Court preliminary investigation over his case for
elucidated on the nature of the powers of the alleged Murder, the Court held: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Ombudsman to investigate.
The Deloso case has already been re-
In 1993, the Court held in Sanchez vs. examined in two cases, namely Aguinaldo v.
Demetriou, that while it may be true that the Domagas and Sanchez v. Demetriou.
Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate However, by way of amplification, we feel the
and prosecute any illegal act or omission of need for tracing the history of the legislation
any public official, the authority of the relative to the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
Ombudsman to investigate is merely a since the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction
primary and not an exclusive authority, is dependent on the cases cognizable by the
thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary former.

The Ombudsman is indeed empowered under In the process, we shall observe how the
Section 15, paragraph (1) of RA 6770 to policy of the law, with reference to the
investigate and prosecute any illegal act or subject matter, has been in a state of flux.
omission of any public official. However as we
held only two years ago in the case These laws, in chronological order, are the
of Aguinaldo v. Domagas, this authority "is following: (a) Pres. Decree No. 1486, - the
not an exclusive authority but rather a first law on the Sandiganbayan; (b) Pres.
shared or concurrent authority in respect of Decree No. 1606 which expressly repealed
the offense charged." Pres. Decree No. 1486; (c) Section 20 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129; (d) Pres. Decree
Petitioners finally assert that the information No. 1860; and (e) Pres. Decree No. 1861.
and amended information filed in this case
needed the approval of the Ombudsman. It is The latest law on the Sandiganbayan, Sec. 1
not disputed that the information and of Pres. Decree No. 1861 reads as follows: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

amended information here did not have the

approval of the Ombudsman. However, we do "SECTION 1. Section 4 of Presidential Decree
not believe that such approval was necessary
No. 1606 is hereby amended to read as are in pari materia when they relate to the
follows: same person or thing or to the same class of
'SEC. A. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan persons or things, or object, or cover the
shall exercise: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary same specific or particular subject matter.

'(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases It is axiomatic in statutory construction that
involving: a statute must be interpreted, not only to be
... consistent with itself but also to harmonize
with other laws on the same subject matter,
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by as to form a complete, coherent and
public officers and employees in relation to intelligible system. The rule is expressed in
their office, including those employed in the maxim, "interpretare et concordare
government-owned or controlled corporation, legibus est optimus interpretand," or every
whether simple or complexed with other statute must be so construed and
crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law harmonized with other statutes as to form a
is higher than prision correccional or uniform system of jurisprudence. Thus, in the
imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of application and interpretation of Article XI,
P6,000: PROVIDED, Sections 12 and 13 of the 1987 Constitution
and the Ombudsman Act of 1989, Pres.
HOWEVER, that offenses or felonies Decree No. 1861 must be taken into
mentioned in this paragraph where the consideration. It must be assumed that when
penalty prescribed by law does not exceed the 1987 Constitution was written, its
prision correccional or imprisonment for six framers had in mind previous statutes
(6) years or a fine of P6,000 shall be tried by relating to the same subject matter. In the
the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan absence of any express repeal or
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and amendment, the 1987 Constitution and the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court." Ombudsman Act of 1989 are deemed in
A perusal of the aforecited law shows that accord with existing statute, specifically,
two requirements must concur under Sec. Pres. Decree No. 1861.
4(a)(2) for an offense to fall under the
Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, namely: the R.A. No. 8249 which amended Section 4,
offense committed by the public officer must paragraph (b) of the Sandiganbayan Law
be in relation to his office and than penalty (P.D. 1861) likewise provides that for other
prescribed be higher then prision offenses, aside from those enumerated under
correccional or imprisonment for six (6) paragraphs (a) and (c), to fall under the
years, or a fine of P6,000.00. exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
they must have been committed by public
Applying the law to the case at bench, we officers or employees in relation to their
find that although the second requirement office.
has been met, the first requirement is
wanting. A review of these Presidential In summation, the Constitution, Section
Decrees, except Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and
would reveal that the crime committed by Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law, as
public officers or employees must be "in amended, do not give to the Ombudsman
relation to their office" if it is to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction to investigate
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. This offenses committed by public officers or
phrase which is traceable to Pres. Decree No. employees. The authority of the
1468, has been retained by Pres. Decree No. Ombudsman to investigate offenses
1861 as a requirement before the involving public officers or employees is
Ombudsman can acquire primary jurisdiction concurrent with other government
on its power to investigate. investigating agencies such as
provincial, city and state prosecutors.
It cannot be denied that Pres. Decree No. However, the Ombudsman, in the
1861 is in pah materia to Article XI, Sections exercise of its primary jurisdiction over
12 and 13 of the 1987 Constitution and the cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,
Ombudsman Act of 1989 because, as earlier may take over, at any stage, from any
mentioned, the Ombudsman's power to investigating agency of the government,
investigate is dependent on the cases the investigation of such cases.
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Statutes
In other words, respondent DOJ Panel is
not precluded from conducting any exclusive jurisdiction to an administrative
investigation of cases against public body which in all instances of such grant was
officers involving violations of penal explicitly provided in the Constitution and/or
laws but if the cases fall under the the enabling statute, to wit:
exclusive jurisdiction of the 1. Commission on Elections' exclusive original
Sandiganbayan, then respondent jurisdiction over all elections contests;28
Ombudsman may, in the exercise of its
primary jurisdiction[,] take over at any 2. Securities and Exchange Commission's
stage. original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
cases enumerated under Section 5 of
xxxx Presidential Decree No. 902-A,29 prior to its
transfer to courts of general jurisdiction or
To reiterate for emphasis, the power to the appropriate Regional Trial Court by virtue
investigate or conduct preliminary of Section 4 of the Securities Regulation
investigation on charges against any Code;
public officers or employees may be
exercised by an investigator or by any 3. Energy Regulatory Commission's original
provincial or city prosecutor or their and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases
assistants, either in their regular contesting rates, fees, fines, and penalties
capacities or as deputized Ombudsman imposed by it in the exercise of its powers,
prosecutors. The fact that all functions and responsibilities;30
prosecutors are in effect deputized
Ombudsman prosecutors under the 4. Department of Agrarian Reform's31 primary
OMB-DOJ Circular is a mere superfluity. jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
The DOJ Panel need not be authorized agrarian reform matters, and its exclusive
nor deputized by the Ombudsman to original jurisdiction over all matters involving
conduct the preliminary investigation for the implementation of agrarian reform except
complaints filed with it because the those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction
DOJ's authority to act as the principal of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and
law agency of the government and the Department of Environment and Natural
investigate the commission of crimes Resources (DENR);32
under the Revised Penal Code is derived
from the Revised Administrative Code 5. Construction Industry Arbitration
which had been held in Commission's original and exclusive
the Natividad case as not being contrary jurisdiction over disputes involving contracts
to the Constitution. Thus, there is not of construction, whether government or
even a need to delegate the conduct of private, as long as the parties agree to
the preliminary investigation to an submit the same to voluntary arbitration;33
agency which has the jurisdiction to do
so in the first place. However, the 6. Voluntary arbitrator's or panel of voluntary
Ombudsman may assert its primary arbitrator's original and exclusive jurisdiction
jurisdiction at any stage of the over all unresolved grievances arising from
investigation.27 (Emphasis supplied) the interpretation or implementation of the
In contrast to our holding in Honasan II, the collective bargaining agreement and those
NCIP cannot be said to have even primary arising from the interpretation or
jurisdiction over all the ICC/IP cases enforcement of company personnel policies;34
comparable to what the Ombudsman has in
cases falling under the exclusive jurisdiction 7. The National Labor Relations Commission's
of the Sandiganbayan. We do not find such (NLRC's) original and exclusive jurisdiction
specificity in the grant of jurisdiction to the over cases listed in Article 217 of the Labor
NCIP in Section 66 of the IPRA. Code involving all workers, whether
agricultural or non-agricultural; and
Neither does the IPRA confer original and
exclusive jurisdiction to the NCIP over all 8. Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of
claims and disputes involving rights of Immigration's primary and exclusive
ICCs/IPs. jurisdiction over all deportation cases.35
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

That the proviso found in Section 66 of the

Thus, we revert to the point on the IPRA is exclusionary, specifically excluding
investiture of primary and/or original and disputes involving rights of IPs/ICCs where
the opposing party is non-ICC/IP, is reflected
in the IPRA's emphasis of customs and Customary law is a primary, not secondary,
customary law to govern in the lives of the source of rights under the IPRA and uniquely
ICCs/IPs. In fact, even the IPRA itself applies to ICCs/IPs. Its recognition does not
recognizes that customs and customary law depend on the absence of a specific provision
cannot be applied to non-IPs/ICCs since in the civil law. The indigenous concept of
ICCs/IPs are recognized as a distinct sector ownership under customary law is specifically
of Philippine society. This recognition acknowledged and recognized, and coexists
contemplates their difference from the with the civil law concept and the laws on
Filipino majority, their way of life, how they land titling and land registration38
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

have continuously lived as an organized Once again, the primacy of customs and
community on communally bounded and customary law sets the parameters for the
defined territory. The ICCs/IPs share NCIP's limited and special jurisdiction and its
common bonds of language, customs, consequent application in dispute
traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, resolution.39 Demonstrably, the proviso in
which by their resistance to political, social Section 66 of the IPRA limits the jurisdiction
and cultural inroads of colonization, non- of the NCIP to cases of claims and disputes
indigenous religions and cultures, became involving rights of ICCs/IPs where both
historically differentiated from the majority. parties are ICCs/IPs because customs and
ICCs/IPs also include descendants of customary law cannot be made to apply to
ICCs/IPs who inhabited the country at the non-ICCs/IPs within the parameters of the
time of conquest or colonization, who retain NCIP's limited and special jurisdiction.
some or all of their own social, economic,
cultural and political institutions but who may Indeed, non-ICCs/IPs cannot be subjected to
have been displaced from their traditional this special and limited jurisdiction of the
territories, or who may have resettled outside NCIP even if the dispute involves rights of
their ancestral domains.36 ICCs/IPs since the NCIP has no power and
authority to decide on a
In all, the limited or special jurisdiction of the controversy involving, as well, rights of
NCIP, confined only to a special cause non-ICCs/IPs which may be brought
involving rights of IPs/ICCs, can only be before a court of general jurisdiction
exercised under the limitations and within the legal bounds of rights and
circumstances prescribed by the statute. remedies. Even as a practical concern, non-
IPs and non-members of ICCs ought to be
To effect the IPRA and its thrust to recognize excepted from the NCIP's competence since it
and promote the rights of ICCs/IPs within the cannot determine the right-duty correlative,
framework of the Constitution goes hand in and breach thereof, between opposing parties
hand with the IPRA's running theme of the who are ICCs/IPs and non-ICCs/IPs, the
primary distinctiveness of customary laws, controversy necessarily contemplating
and its application to almost all aspects of the application of other laws, not only customs
lives of members of the IPs/ICCs, including and customary law of the ICCs/IPs. In short,
the resolution of disputes among ICCs/IPs. the NCIP is only vested with jurisdiction to
The NCIP was created under the IPRA exactly determine the rights of ICCs/IPs based on
to act on and resolve claims and disputes customs and customary law in a given
involving the tights of ICCs/IPs.37 controversy against another ICC/IP, but not
the applicable law for each and every kind of
Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, in his ICC/IP controversy even against an opposing
separate opinion in Cruz, the first challenge non-ICC/IP.
to the IPRA, emphasizes the primacy of
customs and customary law in the lives of the In San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC,40 we
members of ICCs/IPs: delineated the jurisdiction of the Labor
Custom, from which customary law is Arbiter and the NLRC, specifically paragraph
derived, is also recognized under the Civil 3 thereof, as all money claims of workers,
Code as a source of law. Some articles of the limited to "cases arising from employer-
Civil Code expressly provide that custom employee relations." The same clause was
should be applied in cases where no codal not expressly carried over, in printer's ink, in
provision is applicable. In other words, in the Article 217 as it exists today but the Court
absence of any applicable provision in the ruled that such was a limitation on the
Civil Code, custom, when duly proven, can
define rights and liabilities.
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the [be] read not in isolation from but rather
NLRC, thus: within the context formed by paragraph 1
The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the (relating to unfair labor practices), paragraph
National Labor Relations Commission is 2 (relating to claims concerning terms and
outlined in Article 217 of the Labor Code x x conditions of employment), paragraph 4
x: (claims relating to household services, a
"ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and particular species of employer-employee
the Commission. - (a) The Labor Arbiters relations), and paragraph 5 (relating to
shall have the original and exclusive certain activities prohibited to employees or
jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty to employers). It is evident that there is a
(30) working days after submission of the unifying element which runs through
case by the parties for decision, the following paragraphs 1 to 5 and that is, that they all
cases involving all workers, whether refer to cases or disputes arising out of or in
agricultural or non-agricultural: connection with an employer-employee
relationship. This is, in other words, a
1. Unfair labor practice situation where the rule of noscitur a
cases; sociis may be [used] in clarifying the scope of
paragraph 3, and any other paragraph of
2. Those that workers may Article 217 of the Labor Code, as amended.
file involving wages, We reach the above conclusion from an
hours of work and other examination of the terms themselves of
terms and conditions of Article 217, as last amended by B.P. Blg.
employment; 227, and even though earlier versions of
Article 217 of the Labor Code expressly
3. All money claims of brought within the jurisdiction of the Labor
workers, including those Arbiters and the NLRC "cases arising from
based on non-payment employer-employee relations," which clause
or underpayment of was not expressly carried over, in printer's
wages, overtime ink, in Article 217 as it exists today. For it
compensation, cannot be presumed that money claims of
separation pay and other workers which do not arise out of or in
benefits provided by law connection with their employer-employee
or appropriate relationship, and which would therefore fall
agreement, except within the general jurisdiction of the regular
claims for employees' courts of justice, were intended by the
compensation, social legislative authority to be taken away from
security, medicare and the jurisdiction of the courts and lodged with
maternity benefits; Labor Arbiters on an exclusive basis. The
court, therefore, believes and so holds that
4. Cases involving the "money claims of workers" referred to in
household services; and paragraph 3 of Article 217 embraces money
claims which arise out of or in connection
5. Cases arising from any with the employer-employee relationship, or
violation of Article 265 of some aspect or incident of such relationship.
this Code, including Put a little differently, that money claims of
questions involving the workers which now fall within the original and
legality of strikes and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters are
lockouts. those money claims which have some
reasonable causal connection with the
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive employer-employee relationship.
appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided
Clearly, the phraseology of "all claims and
by Labor Arbiters."
disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs" does
While paragraph 3 above refers to "all money not necessarily grant the NCIP all-
claims of workers," it is not necessary to encompassing jurisdiction whenever the case
suppose that the entire universe of involves rights of ICCs/IPs without regard to
money claims that might be asserted by the status of the parties, i.e, whether the
workers against their employers has opposing parties are both ICCs/IPs.
been absorbed into the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters. In Union Glass & Container Corp., et al. v.
In the first place, paragraph 3 should not
SEC, et al.,41 we learned to view the bestowal 1.) Cases involving disputes and
of jurisdiction in the light of the nature and controversies over ancestral lands/domains
the function of the adjudicative body that was of ICCs/IPs;
granted jurisdiction, thus:
This grant of jurisdiction must be viewed in xxx
the light of the nature and function of the
SEC under the law. Section 4 of PD No. 902- 5.) Cases involving violations of the
A confers upon the latter "absolute requirement of free and prior and informed
jurisdiction, supervision and control over all consent of ICCs/IPs;
corporations, partnerships or associations,
who are grantees of primary franchise and/or xxx
license or permit issued by the government
to operate in the Philippines x x x." The 6.) Actions for enforcement of decisions of
principal function of the SEC is the ICCs/IPs involving violations of customary
supervision and control over corporations, laws or desecration of ceremonial sites,
partnerships and associations with the end in sacred places, or rituals;
view that investrnent in these entities may be
encouraged and protected, and their xxx
activities pursued for the promotion of
economic development. 8.) Actions for redemption/reconveyance
under Section8(b) of R.A. 8371; and
It is in aid of this office that the
adjudicative power of the SEC must be 9.) Such other cases analogous to the
exercised. Thus the law explicitly foregoing.
specified and delimited its jurisdiction to is of no moment. The power of administrative
matters intrinsically connected with the officials to promulgate rules in the
regulation of corporations, partnerships implementation of a statute is necessarily
and associations and those dealing with limited to what is provided for in the
the internal affairs of such corporations, legislative enactment.45
partnerships or associations.42 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Drawing a parallel to Union Glass,43 the It ought to be stressed that the function of

expertise and competence of the NCIP cover promulgating rules and regulations may be
only the implementation and the enforcement legitimately exercised only for the purpose of
of the IPRA and customs and customary law carrying out the provisions of the law into
of specific ICCs/IPs; the NCIP does not have effect. The administrative regulation must be
competence to determine rights, duties and within the scope and purview of the
obligations of non-ICCs/IPs under other laws law.46 The implementing rules and regulations
although such may also involve rights of of a law cannot extend the law or expand its
ICCs/IPs. Consistently, the wording of coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a
Section 66 that "the NCIP shall have statute is vested in the legislature. Indeed,
jurisdiction over all claims and disputes administrative issuances must not override,
involving rights of ICCs/IPs" plus the proviso but must remain consistent with the law they
necessarily contemplate a limited jurisdiction seek to apply and implement. They are
over cases and disputes between IPs/ICCs. intended to carry out, not to supplant or to
modify, the law.47
That NCIP Administrative Circulars44 expand
the jurisdiction of the NCIP as original and However, administrative bodies are allowed,
exclusive in Sections 5 and 1, respectively of under their power of subordinate legislation,
Rule III: to implement the broad policies laid down in
Jurisdiction of the NCIP. - The NCIP through the statute by 'filling in' the details. All that is
its Regional Hearing Offices shall exercise required is that the regulation does not
jurisdiction over all claims and disputes contradict, but conforms with the standards
involving rights of ICCs/IPs and all cases prescribed by law.48
pertaining to the implementation,
enforcement, and interpretation of R.A. 8371, Perforce, in this case, the NCIP's
including but not limited to the following: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Administrative Circulars' classification of its
RHO's jurisdiction as original and exclusive,
(A.) Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of the supplants the general jurisdiction granted by
Regional Hearing Office (RHO): Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 to the trial courts
and ultimately, modifies and broadens the 8. That Sections 3.1 and 11 of the IPRA
scope of the jurisdiction conferred by the provided that the State recognizes the rights
IPRA on the NCIP. We cannot sustain such a of the Indigenous Cultural Communities
classification. (ICCs) to our ancestral domains by virtue of
their Native Title and that, it was even
As previously adverted to, we are not optional on their part to request for the
unaware of The City Government of Baguio issuance of a title or CADT;
City, et al. v. Atty. Masweng, et al.49 and
similar cases where we made an implicit 9. That as such, it was not even required that
affirmation of the NCIP's jurisdiction over they have to obtain first a CADT before their
cases where one of the parties are non- rights to their ancestral domains be
ICCs/IPs. Such holding, however, and all the recognized;
succeeding exercises of jurisdiction by the
NCIP, cannot tie our hands and declare a 10. That furthermore, their free and prior
grant of primary and/or original and exclusive informed consent (FPIC) are required before
jurisdiction, where there is no such explicit any person or entity, whether private or
conferment by the IPRA. At best, the limited government can enter or undertake any
jurisdiction of the NCIP is concurrent with activity within their ancestral domains;
that of the regular trial courts in the exercise
of the latter's general jurisdiction extending 11. That in order to ensure that their rights
to all controversies brought before them to FPIC are not violated, Section 59 of the
within the legal bounds of rights and IPRA provides that the NCIP had to issue first
remedies.50 a Certification Precondition (CP) that their
consent had been elicited first;
Jurisprudence has held on more than one
occasion that in determining which body has 12. That their Free and Prior Informed
jurisdiction over a case, we consider the Consent was not elicited by [petitioners]
nature of the question that is the subject of Engr. Ben Lim, RBL Fishing Corporation,
controversy as well as the status or Palawan Aquaculture Corporation and
relationship of the parties.51 Peninsula Shipyard Corporation when they
unlawfully entered and occupied portions of
Thus, we examine the pertinent allegations in their ancestral domains [in] Sitio Makwaw
respondents' petition: and Sitio Minukbay Buenavista, Coron,
4. That [respondents] are members of the Palawan at a time when the IPRA was already
Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Communities operative;
in the Calamianes group of islands [in]
Coron, Palawan; 13. That the workers of the abovenamed
persons had destroyed the houses of [their]
5. That Barangay Buenavista, Coron is part of tribal members, coerced some to stop from
the ancestral domains of the Tagbanuas cultivating their lands and had set up houses
within Cluster 1 of the Calamianes group of within the said portions of their ancestral
islands; domains;

6. That prior to the enactment of the 14. That the unlawful intrusion and
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 occupation of [petitioners] within the
(IPRA), they have already filed their claim for aforesaid portions of their ancestral domains
the recognition of their ancestral domains and their violation of the rights of
with the Department of Environment and [respondents] to Free and Prior and Informed
Natural Resources under DAO-2-93 and DAO Consent and the criminal acts committed by
No. 61-91; [petitioners'] workers had cause (sic)
incalculable sufferings among [respondents]
7. That because of the enactment of the x x x.52
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

IPRA, the Provincial Special Task Force on In their petition before the NCIP, respondents
Ancestral Domains (PSTFAD) recommended alleged: (1) their status as Tagbanuas,
instead the validation of their proofs and claiming representation of the Tagbanua
claims with the newly created National Indigenous Cultural Communities in the
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Calamianes Group of Islands in Coron,
for the corresponding issuance of a Palawan; (2) the provision in the law which
Certificate of Ancestral Domains Title (CADT). recognizes native title of indigenous cultural
communities and indigenous persons; (3) Administrative Order No. 2-93 and No. 61-
that they have already filed their claim for 91; and with the advent of the IPRA, it was
the recognition of their ancestral domains no longer required that they first obtain a
with the DENR; (4) that they have yet to CADT. However, una voce, they aver that it
obtain a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title has been recommended that they validate
(CADT) from the NICP which, under the IPRA, "their proofs and claims" with the NCIP for
is the agency tasked to validate their claim; the issuance of a CADT. The allegation itself
(5) the purported violation of petitioners of goes against respondents' conclusions that
their rights to free and prior and informed they are Tagbanuas.
consent; and (6) that petitioners unlawfully
intruded and occupied respondents' ancestral Such a pronouncement does not contradict
domains. the indigenous concept of ownership even
without a paper title and that the CADT is
From their allegations in the petition, such merely a formal recognition of native
call to the fore: (1) respondents' lack of title.55 This is clear from Section 11 of the
CADT; and (2) the status of petitioners as IPRA, to wit:
non-ICCs/IPs and petitioners' apparent SEC. 11. Recognition of Ancestral Domain
ignorance that respondents are IPs, and their Rights. - The rights of ICCs/IPs to their
claim of ancestral domain over the subject ancestral domains by virtue of Native Title
property. shall be recognized and respected. Formal
recognition, when solicited by ICCs/IPs
It should be noted that a bare allegation that concerned shall be embodied in a Certificate
one is entitled to something is not an of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which shall
allegation but a conclusion.53 Such allegation recognize the title of the concerned ICCs/IPs
adds nothing to the pleading, it being over the territories identified and delineated.
necessary to plead specifically the facts upon And along those lines, we have subsequently
which such conclusion is founded.54 Rule 8 of held in Lamsis, et al. v. Dong-e56 that:
the Rules of Court, entitled "Manner of The application for issuance of a Certificate of
Making Allegations in Pleadings" requires in Ancestral Land Title pending before the NCIP
Section 1, as a general rule, for "[e]very is akin to a registration proceeding. It also
pleading [to] contain in a methodical and seeks an official recognition of one's claim to
logical form, a plain, concise and direct a particular land and is also in rem. The
statement of the ultimate facts on which the titling of ancestral lands is for the
party pleading relies for his claim or defense, purpose of "officially establishing" one's
as the case may be, omitting the statement land as an ancestral land. Just like a
of mere evidentiary facts." registration proceeding, the titling of
ancestral lands does not vest ownership
Respondents' status as Tagbanuas, as upon the applicant but only recognizes
indigenous persons or members of an ownership that has already vested in the
indigenous cultural community, is not an applicant by virtue of his and his
ultimate fact from which respondents can predecessor-in-interest's possession of
anchor the rights they claim to have been the property since time immemorial.57
violated by petitioners.
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Nonetheless, the allegation that respondents

In this case, respondents' petition, as are Tagbanuas and that they are
written, does not mention ultimate facts that representatives of the Tagbanua Indigenous
lead to the conclusion that (1) they are Cultural Communities are conclusions of their
Tagbanuas, and (2) they are the status not derived from facts that should
representatives of the Tagbanua Indigenous have been alleged. Indeed, respondents did
Cultural Community. Neither are there not even attempt to factually demonstrate
allegations of ultimate facts showing acts or their authority to represent the Tagbanua
omissions on the part of petitioners which Indigenous Cultural Community. This is
constitute a violation of respondents' rights. crucial since intra IPs' conflicts and contest
for representation are not impossible.
We elucidate.
In that regard, Section 3(f) of the IPRA
In this case, respondents allege that prior to defines "customary laws" as "a body of
the enactment of the IPRA, they have written and/or unwritten rules, usages,
previously applied for recognition of their customs and practices traditionally and
ancestral domain with the DENR under DENR continually recognized, accepted and
observed by respective ICCs/IPs" Section Environment & Natural Resources,59 the IPRA
3(i), on the other hand, refers to "indigenous grants to ICCs/IPs rights over ancestral
political structures" consisting of domains and ancestral lands where land is
"organizational and cultural leadership the central element of the IPs'
systems, institutions, relationships, patterns existence, viz.:
and processes for decision making and x x x There is no traditional concept of
participation, identified by ICCs/IPs such as, permanent, individual, land ownership.
but not limited to, Council of Elders, Council Among the Igorots, ownership of land more
of Timuays, Bodong Holders, or any other accurately applies to the tribal right to use
tribunal or body of similar nature." To the land or to territorial control. The people
establish their status as Tagbanuas or their are the secondary owners or stewards of the
representation as representatives of land and that if a member of the tribe ceases
Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community, to work, he loses his claim of ownership, and
respondents, as "plaintiffs" claiming relief the land reverts to the beings of the spirit
under the IPRA, should have alleged the world who are its true and primary owners.
ultimate facts constitutive of their customs, Under the concept of "trusteeship," the right
political structures, institutions, decision to possess the land does not only belong to
making processes, and such other indicators the present generation but the future ones as
of indigenous persons nature distinct and well.
native to them.
Customary law on land rests on the
Truly, respondents should have asserted their traditional belief that no one owns the land
identification through a reduction into facts of except the gods and spirits, and that those
the defmition and description of an ICC/IP in who work the land are its mere
the IPRA: stewards. Customary law has a strong
Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous preference for communal ownership,
Peoples refer to a group of people or which could either be ownership by a group
homogenous societies identified by self of individuals or families who are related by
ascription and ascription by others, who have blood or by marriage, or ownership by
continuously lived as organized community residents of the same locality who may not
on communally bounded and defined be related by blood or marriage. The system
territory, and who have, under claims of of communal ownership under customary
ownership since time immemorial, occupied, laws draws its meaning from the subsistence
possessed and utilized such territories, and highly collectivized mode of economic
sharing common bonds of language, production. The Kalingas, for instance, who
customs, traditions and other distinctive are engaged in team occupation like hunting,
cultural traits, or who have, through foraging for forest products, and swidden
resistance to political, social and cultural farming found it natural that forest areas,
inroads of colonization, non indigenous swidden farms, orchards, pasture and burial
religions and cultures, became historically grounds should be communally-owned. For
differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. the Kalingas, everybody has a common right
ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who to a common economic base. Thus, as a rule,
are regarded as indigenous on account of rights and obligations to the land are shared
their descent from the populations which in common.
inhabited the country, at the time of
conquest or colonization, or at the time of Although highly bent on communal
inroads of non indigenous religions and ownership, customary law on land also
cultures, or the establishment of present sanctions individual ownership. The
state boundaries, who retain some or all of residential lots and terrace rice farms are
their own social, economic, cultural and governed by a limited system of individual
political institutions, but who may have been ownership. It is limited because while the
displaced from their traditional domains or individual owner has the right to use and
who may have resettled outside their dispose of the property, he does not possess
ancestral domains[.]58 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary all the rights of an exclusive and full owner as
Also, the right of ancestral property requires defined under our Civil Code. Under Kalinga
historical proof which, of course, must customary law, the alienation of individually-
proceed from allegations in the petition. As owned land is strongly discouraged except in
noted in the separate opinion of former Chief marriage and succession and except to meet
Justice Reynato S. Puno in Cruz v. Sec of sudden financial needs due to sickness, death
in the family, or loss of crops. Moreover, and
to be alienated should first be offered to a other voluntary dealings entered into by
clan-member before any village-member can government and private
purchase it, and in no case may land be sold individuals/corporations, including, but not
to a non-member of the ili. limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or
paddies, private forests, swidden farms and
Land titles do not exist in the indigenous tree lots.61
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

peoples' economic and social system. Respondents made no allegation outlining

The concept of individual land ownership and tracing the history of their indigenous
under the civil law is alien to them. ownership of domain and land.
Inherently colonial in origin, our
national land laws and governmental To further highlight the necessity of
policies frown upon indigenous claims to respondents' allegation of their status as
ancestral lands. Communal ownership is Tagbanuas is the stewardship concept of
looked upon as inferior, if not property which is most applicable to land
inexistent.60ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

among the Philippine IP:62

Under the IPRA, ancestral domains and Land is not an individual item which a man
ancestral lands are two concepts, distinct and owns for himself and by himself. For he
different from one another: secures the rights to land in two ways:
a) Ancestral Domains. - Subject to Section 56 Firstly, as a citizen of the tribe he is entitled
hereof, refer to all areas generally belonging to some arable land and building land, and to
to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, the use of public pasturage, fishing waters,
coastal areas, and natural resources therein, and wild products. Secondly, in all tribes
held under a claim of ownership, occupied or except those who shift their gardens widely
possessed by ICCs/IPs by themselves or and have an abundance of land, he gets
through their ancestors, communally or rights from membership of a village and a
individually since time immemorial, group of kinsfolk. That is, a man's right to
continuously to the present except when land in the tribal home depends upon his
interrupted by war, force majeure or accepting membership of a tribe, with all its
displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a obligations. The right of every subject, while
consequence of government projects or any he is a subject, is jealously safeguarded.63 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

other voluntary dealings entered into by It is also significant to note that respondents
government and private do not identify themselves with other
individuals/corporations, and which are Tagbanuas who have been awarded a
necessary to ensure their economic, social Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim as of
and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral 1998.64
lands, forests, pasture, residential,
agricultural, and other lands individually Palpably, in the factual milieu obtaining
owned whether alienable and disposable or herein, the NCIP does not have ipso
otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, facto jurisdiction over the petition of
worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and respondents just by the mere expedient that
other natural resources, and lands which may their petition involves rights of ICCs/IPs.
no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs
but from which they traditionally had access One other thing jumps out from all the
to for their subsistence and traditional discussions herein: the IPRA does not contain
activities, particularly the home ranges of a repeal of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129
ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting limiting the general jurisdiction of the trial,
cultivators; courts even as the IPRA purportedly grants
the NCIP jurisdiction over "all claims and
b) Ancestral Lands. - Subject to Section 56 disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs."
hereof, refers to land occupied, possessed
and utilized by individuals, families and clans Section 83 of the IPRA, the repealing clause,
who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time only specifies Presidential Decree No. 410,
immemorial, by themselves or through their Executive Order Nos. 122B and 122C as
predecessors-in-interest, under claims of expressly repealed. While the same section
individual or traditional group ownership, does state that "all other laws, decrees,
continuously, to the present except when orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof
interrupted by war, force majeure or inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed
displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a or modified accordingly," such an implied
consequence of government projects and repeal is predicated upon the condition that a
substantial and an irreconcilable conflict must
be found in existing and prior Acts. The two WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The
laws refer to different subject matters, albeit Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
the IPRA includes the jurisdiction of the NCIP. SP No. 98268 dated 26 April 2010 and the
As such, resolution of conflicts between Resolution of the National Commission on
parties who are not both ICCs/IPs may still Indigenous Peoples in RHO 4-01-2006 dated
fall within the general jurisdiction of the 30 November 2006 are REVERSED AND SET
regular courts dependent on the allegations ASIDE.
in the complaint or petition and the status of
the parties. The petition in RHO 4-01-2006
is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction of the
There is no clear irreconcilable conflict from National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.
the investiture of jurisdiction to the NCIP in Section 1 of NCIP Administrative Circular No.
instances where, among others, all the 1, Series of 2014, promulgated on 9 October
parties are ICCs/IPs and the claim or dispute 2014 declaring the jurisdiction of the
involves their rights, and the specific wording Regional Hearing Officer as original and
of Batasang Pambansa Bilang 129, Sections exclusive is declared VOID for expanding the
19-2165 on the exclusive and original law. Respondents may refile their complaint
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, and against petitioners in a court of general
Sections 33-3566 on the exclusive original jurisdiction.
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit No costs.
Trial Courts.
SO ORDERED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We should not, and cannot, adopt the theory

of implied repeal except upon a clear and
unequivocal expression of the will of
Congress, which is not manifest from the
language of Section 66 of the IPRA which, to
reiterate: (1) did not use the words "primary"
and/or "original and exclusive" to describe
the jurisdiction of the NCIP over "all claims
and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs" and
(2) contained a proviso requiring certification
that the parties have exhausted their
remedies provided under customary laws.

We are quick to clarify herein that even as we

declare that in some instances the regular
courts may exercise jurisdiction over cases
which involve rights of ICCs/IPs, the
governing law for these kinds of disputes
necessarily include the IPRA and the rights
the law bestows on ICCs/IPs.

All told, we rule that Section 66 of the IPRA,

even as it grants jurisdiction to the NCIP over
all claims and disputes involving rights of
ICCs/IPs, requires that the opposing parties
are both ICCs/IPs who have exhausted all
their remedies under their customs and
customary law before bringing their claim
and dispute to the NCIP. The validity of
respondents' claim is another matter and a
question that we need not answer for the
moment. Too, we do not resolve herein the
other issues raised by petitioners given that
we already declared that the NCIP does not
have jurisdiction over the case of
respondents against petitioners.