GR 180882; (February, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180882 ; February 27, 2013
THE BAGUIO REGREENING MOVEMENT, INC., ET AL. vs. ATTY. BRAIN MASWENG, ET AL.
FACTS
Respondents, claiming to be members of the Ibaloi and Kankanaey tribes, filed a petition before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to enjoin a government-led fencing project within the Busol Watershed Reservation in Baguio City. They asserted ancestral land claims over specific lots within the reservation, citing Proclamation No. 15 and old survey plans, and argued the fencing would impede access to their residences, farmlands, and ritual sites. NCIP Regional Hearing Officer Brain Masweng issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and subsequently a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the project. Petitioners, including the Baguio Regreening Movement and the Busol Task Force, challenged these orders, arguing the NCIP had no jurisdiction as the case involved a government infrastructure project within a forest reservation.
ISSUE
Whether the NCIP Regional Hearing Officer had jurisdiction to issue a TRO and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to halt the fencing project within the Busol Watershed Reservation.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the NCIP Hearing Officer had no jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on the clear statutory prohibition under Republic Act No. 8975 , Section 3. This law explicitly strips all courts, including quasi-judicial bodies like the NCIP, of the authority to issue restraining orders or injunctions against government infrastructure projects. The fencing of the Busol Watershed Reservation, a government forest reservation, is unequivocally an infrastructure project falling under this prohibition. The Court emphasized that RA 8975 establishes a rule of absolute prohibition, allowing no exceptions, to prevent judicial or quasi-judicial interference that could cause costly delays in vital public projects. While the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) grants the NCIP quasi-judicial powers, including the authority to issue injunctive relief under specific circumstances, this general power cannot override the specific and absolute ban imposed by the later and more specific law, RA 8975. Therefore, Atty. Masweng acted without jurisdiction, and all orders issued from the NCIP proceedings were null and void. The proper recourse for respondents was to seek relief through other legal avenues, not an injunction from the NCIP.