G.R. No. 135385; December 6, 2000
ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA, petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT and CHAIRMAN and COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, as citizens and taxpayers, filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus assailing the constitutionality of key provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing Rules. They argued that the law unlawfully deprived the State of its ownership over lands of the public domain and natural resources therein, violating the regalian doctrine enshrined in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. The specific provisions challenged included those defining ancestral domains and lands, recognizing indigenous peoples’ rights over these areas and the natural resources found therein, and granting them priority rights in the exploration and development of such resources.
The respondents, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), defended the constitutionality of IPRA. In contrast, the Solicitor General, representing the Secretaries of the DENR and DBM, contended that IPRA was partly unconstitutional for granting ownership of natural resources to indigenous peoples. Several groups were allowed to intervene, including Senator Juan Flavier and indigenous peoples’ leaders, the Commission on Human Rights, and the Ikalahan Indigenous People with Haribon Foundation, all supporting IPRA’s constitutionality and seeking the petition’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether certain provisions of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) are unconstitutional for violating the regalian doctrine, which vests ownership of all natural resources in the State.

RULING

The Court, voting 7-7, dismissed the petition. The tie vote resulted in the affirmation of the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of IPRA, as a majority vote is required to declare a law unconstitutional. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of the regalian doctrine in harmony with other constitutional mandates. The Constitution itself, while asserting State ownership over natural resources, contains explicit recognition of the rights of indigenous cultural communities. Section 5, Article XII mandates the protection of these communities’ rights to their ancestral lands “within the framework of national unity and development.”
The Court’s resolution implies that IPRA’s grant of rights over ancestral domains and resources is not an alienation of State ownership but a statutory recognition and delineation of a pre-existing native title. This concept of native title, or ownership by indigenous peoples predating the Spanish conquest, is an exception to the regalian doctrine. The law operationalizes the constitutional directive by defining the scope of ancestral domains and establishing a framework for the sustainable management and benefit-sharing of resources. The priority rights granted are viewed as a mechanism for equitable access and development, consistent with the State’s role as ultimate owner and its duty to protect indigenous welfare. The tie vote thus upheld IPRA as a legitimate exercise of legislative power to fulfill a constitutional social justice imperative.