G.R. No. 195638 . March 22, 2022
ANITA SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. KISSACK B. GABAEN, RICARDO D. SANGA, AND THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Pinagtibukan It Pala’wan, Inc. (PINPAL), a people’s organization of a Palawan Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC), held a Resource Use Permit (RUP) from the DENR to gather almaciga resin from an ancestral domain area. Danny Erong, a tribal chieftain and resin gatherer, filed a complaint before the NCIP-Regional Hearing Office (NCIP-RHO) against PINPAL and the DENR. He alleged the RUP was issued without the required Certification Precondition (CP) under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), and that PINPAL forced him to sell resin only to petitioner Anita Santos, creating a monopoly. The NCIP-RHO issued a temporary restraining order. Santos intervened, denying the monopoly allegations. The case was initially referred for amicable settlement but PINPAL later boycotted the process. On February 7, 2011, based on a report that PINPAL would surreptitiously transport resin, the NCIP-RHO, through its field office and with assistance from the Philippine Marines, apprehended a truck sent by Santos to pick up the resin. The NCIP-RHO then issued an Order confiscating the resin and a subsequent Cease and Desist Order, which, among other things, directed Santos and others to refrain from using rights derived from the allegedly illegal RUP. Santos filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing these NCIP-RHO orders.

ISSUE

Whether the NCIP-RHO acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Order dated February 7, 2011, and the Cease and Desist Order dated February 10, 2011.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the assailed NCIP-RHO orders. The Court ruled that the NCIP-RHO committed grave abuse of discretion. First, the confiscation order was issued without a prior hearing, violating Santos’s right to due process. The NCIP’s claim of impracticality due to distance did not justify the deprivation of a hearing. Second, the Cease and Desist Order was overbroad and vague, effectively imposing a blanket injunction against the implementation of all RUPs in Palawan ancestral domains without a clear factual or legal basis specific to each permit. This exceeded the NCIP-RHO’s authority. The Court emphasized that while the NCIP has the power to issue cease and desist orders under its rules, such power must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with due process. The orders were issued in a capricious and arbitrary manner, constituting grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.