Primary Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) is constitutional by virtue of the tied vote (7-7). Because no majority ruling was reached, the law remained valid.

Background

The case was brought by legal scholars and constitutionalists who questioned whether indigenous groups could hold ownership rights over natural resources traditionally deemed as part of the State’s patrimony under the Regalian Doctrine. The petitioners sought a declaration of unconstitutionality for various provisions of the IPRA, arguing that they violated the 1987 Constitution’s provisions on State ownership of public lands and natural resources.

Facts

• 1. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) was enacted in 1997 to recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples over their ancestral domains.
• 2. The petitioners argued that the law violated the Regalian Doctrine, which states that all natural resources belong to the State.
• 3. Sections 3(a), 3(b), 5, 6, 7, 8, 52(i), 57, 58, 59, 63, 65, and 66 of the IPRA were specifically challenged as unconstitutional.
• 4. The government, through the Solicitor General, partially agreed that IPRA might be unconstitutional but did not challenge it in its entirety.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. IPRA grants ownership of natural resources to indigenous peoples, violating Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which states that all natural resources belong to the State.
• 2. The Regalian Doctrine enshrined in the Constitution prohibits the alienation of public lands.
• 3. The law creates special property rights for indigenous peoples, violating the equal protection clause.
• 4. The NCIP’s authority over ancestral domains is excessive and violates the separation of powers.
• 5. The use of customary law in legal disputes involving indigenous peoples is unconstitutional because it bypasses regular courts.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. IPRA does not grant full ownership of natural resources to indigenous peoples; rather, it recognizes their rights to benefit from and manage these resources.
• 2. Indigenous lands existed before the Spanish colonization, and their recognition does not violate the Regalian Doctrine.
• 3. Customary law is recognized under Section 5, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
• 4. The law seeks to rectify historical injustices against indigenous peoples.

Issues

• 1. Does the IPRA violate the Regalian Doctrine by granting ownership of natural resources to indigenous peoples?
• 2. Is the recognition of indigenous rights over ancestral domains consistent with the 1987 Constitution?
• 3. Does the IPRA infringe on the State’s control and supervision over natural resources?
• 4. Is the application of customary law in disputes involving indigenous peoples constitutional?

Ruling

• 1. The petition was dismissed due to a 7-7 tie vote.
• 2. Justice Kapunan (joined by Chief Justice Davide and Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago) voted to dismiss the petition and uphold the IPRA.
• 3. Justice Puno concurred but argued that some provisions should be clarified, particularly those related to large-scale exploitation of natural resources.
• 4. Justice Mendoza voted to dismiss the case on procedural grounds, stating that there was no justiciable controversy.
• 5. Justices Panganiban and Vitug (joined by Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon) voted to grant the petition, declaring key provisions unconstitutional.

Doctrines

• 1. Regalian Doctrine: All lands and natural resources belong to the State unless legally transferred to private ownership.
• 2. Doctrine of Native Title (Cariño v. Insular Government, 1909): Recognizes that indigenous peoples may hold land ownership rights that predate the Spanish colonization.
• 3. Social Justice Doctrine: The Constitution mandates the State to protect marginalized sectors, including indigenous peoples.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "The Constitution must be respected. In seeking to improve the lot of indigenous peoples, Congress cannot do so at the expense of the constitutional rights of others." - Justice Panganiban
• 2. "The State retains full control over the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources." - Justice Puno

Precedents Cited

• 1. Cariño v. Insular Government (1909) – Recognized indigenous land rights under the Doctrine of Native Title.
• 2. Oh Cho v. Director of Lands (1922) – Reinforced the Regalian Doctrine by declaring that all lands not acquired from the government remain public.
• 3. Director of Lands v. Funtilar (1971) – Affirmed the government’s power to classify public lands.
• 4. Tañada v. Tuvera (1986) – Emphasized the role of judicial review in striking down unconstitutional laws.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Section 2, Article XII – Regalian Doctrine (State ownership of natural resources).
• 2. Section 5, Article XII – Recognition of indigenous rights.
• 3. Republic Act No. 8371 (IPRA) – Provisions on ancestral domains and natural resources.