Cruz v. SENR, G.R. No.

135385, 6 December 2000

(Separate Opinion: Justice Kapunan)

FACTS:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as
citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No.
8371 (R.A. 8371), otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and
its Implementing Rules and Regulations (Implementing Rules).

Petitioners argue that ancestral lands and ancestral domains are part of the public domain and,
thus, owned by the State, pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. Also, petitioners
posit that IPRA deprives the State of its ownership over mineral lands of the public domain and
other natural resources, as well as the States full control and supervision over the exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources.

Petitioners further allege that under the Constitution, the exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources may only be undertaken by the State, either directly or indirectly
through co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements. To petitioners, no other
method is allowed by the Constitution. They likewise submit that by vesting ownership of
ancestral lands and ancestral domains in the indigenous peoples, IPRA necessarily gives them
control over the use and enjoyment of such natural resources, to the prejudice of the State.

ISSUE:
Is Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 unconstitutional?

RULING:
YES. The provisions of the IPRA affirming the ownership by the indigenous peoples of their
ancestral lands and domains by virtue of native title do not diminish the States ownership of
lands of the public domain, because said ancestral lands and domains are considered as
private land, and never to have been part of the public domain, following the doctrine laid down
in Cario vs. Insular Government. A proper reading of Cario would show that the doctrine
enunciated therein applies only to lands which have always been considered as private, and
not to lands of the public domain, whether alienable or otherwise. A distinction must be made
between ownership of land under native title and ownership by acquisitive prescription against
the State. Ownership by virtue of native title presupposes that the land has been held by its
possessor and his predecessors-in-interest in the concept of an owner since time immemorial.

The constitutional provision vesting ownership over minerals, mineral lands and other natural
resources in the State is not violated by provisions of the IPRA which grant certain rights to the
indigenous peoples over the natural resources found within the ancestral domains, e.g., to
benefit from and share in the profits from the allocation and utilization of the same, as well as
priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation thereof. The State
retains full control over the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources even
with the grant of said rights to the indigenous peoples, through the imposition of requirements
and conditions for the utilization of natural resources under existing laws, such as the Small-
Scale Mining Act of 1991 and the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. Moreover, the rights granted to
indigenous peoples for the utilization of natural resources within their ancestral domains merely
amplify what has been earlier granted to them under the aforesaid laws.

It also bears stressing that the grant of priority rights does not preclude the State from
undertaking activities, or entering into co-production, joint venture or production-sharing
agreements with private entities, to utilize the natural resources which may be located within the
ancestral domains. There is no intention, as between the State and the indigenous peoples, to
create a hierarchy of values; rather, the object is to balance the interests of the State for national
development and those of the indigenous peoples.