You are on page 1of 4

Carlo Franco B.

Rapay
Section 22
The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development
Isagani Cruz v. Dept. of Energy and Natural Resources
G.R. No. 135385
December 6, 2000
FACTS:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the following provisions of the IPRA and its
Implementing Rules on the ground that they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the States
ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources
therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
The IPRA law basically enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over ancestral domains
which may include natural resources. Petitioners maintain that the broad definition of ancestral
lands and ancestral domains under Section 3(a) and 3(b) of IPRA includes private lands. They
argue that the inclusion of private lands in the ancestral lands and ancestral domains violates
the due process clause.

ISSUE:
Whether IPRA law is unconstitutional.

HELD:
No. After due deliberation on the petition, the members of the Court voted as follows:
Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition. Justice Kapunan filed an opinion, which the Chief
Justice and Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago join, sustaining the validity of the
challenged provisions of R.A. 8371. Justice Puno also filed a separate opinion sustaining all
challenged provisions of the law with the exception of Section 1, Part II, Rule III of NCIP
Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, the Rules and Regulations Implementing the IPRA,
and Section 57 of the IPRA which he contends should be interpreted as dealing with the largescale exploitation of natural resources and should be read in conjunction with Section 2, Article
XII of the 1987 Constitution. On the other hand, Justice Mendoza voted to dismiss the petition
solely on the ground that it does not raise a justiciable controversy and petitioners do not have
standing to question the constitutionality of R.A. 8371.
Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. Justice Panganiban filed a
separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3 (a)(b), 5, 6, 7 (a)(b), 8, and related
provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. He reserves judgment on the constitutionality of
Sections 58, 59, 65, and 66 of the law, which he believes must await the filing of specific cases

by those whose rights may have been violated by the IPRA. Justice Vitug also filed a separate
opinion expressing the view that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional.
As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained, the
case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is
DISMISSED.

A-IPRA v. COMELEC
Gr. No 204591
April 16, 2013
FACTS:
Petitioner Agapay ng Indigenous Peoples Rights Alliance (A-IPRA) is a sectoral political party
whose primordial objectives are the recognition, protection and promotion of the rights of the
indigenous people.
Petitioner likewise committed itself to promote the culture of the indigenous people through
education and the delivery of basic services to the indigenous cultural communities. Its track
record is manifested by its active advocacy for the passage of the IPRA Law (Republic Act No.
8371) by conducting a series of campaigns and seminars to educate and inform the indigenous
people of their rights.

On May 31, 2012, A-IPRA filed a Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the May 2013 Elections
with the COMELEC. Appended in the manifestation is a new list of nominees and officers (Lota
Group)
ISSUE:
Whether A-IPRA a new list of nominees and officers (Lota Group) are indeed indigenous
people?
HELD:
No. A-IPRA failed to convince the Commission that it has satisfied the aforequoted guidelines
pertaining to party-list nominees. It did not submit proof that would establish that the said
nominees are indeed indigenous people; have actively participated in the undertakings of AIPRA; truly adhere to its advocacies; and most of all, that the said nominees are its bona fide
members.

Central Mindanao University v. Executive Secretary DENR


Gr. 184869
September 21, 2010
FACTS:
This case concerns the constitutionality of a presidential proclamation that takes property from a
state university, over its objections, for distribution to indigenous peoples and cultural
communities.
Petitioner Central Mindanao University (CMU) is a chartered educational institution owned and
run by the State.1In 1958, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 476, reserving 3,401
hectares of lands of the public domain in Musuan, Bukidnon, as school site for CMU.
Forty-five years later or on January 7, 2003 President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued
Presidential Proclamation 310 that takes 670 hectares from CMUs registered lands for
distribution to indigenous peoples and cultural communities in Barangay Musuan, Maramag,
Bukidnon.
ISSUE:
Whether Presidential Proclamation 310 is valid?

HELD:
No. Presidential Proclamation 310 is non compliant with Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA)
or Republic Act 83719 in 1997, it provided in Section 56 that "property rights within the ancestral
domains already existing and/or vested" upon its effectivity "shall be recognized and respected."
In this case, ownership over the subject lands had been vested in CMU as early as 1958.
Consequently, transferring the lands in 2003 to the indigenous peoples around the area is not in
accord with the IPRA. The court grant the petition and DECLARES Presidential Proclamation
310 as null and void for being contrary to law and public policy.

The City Mayor of Baguio and Head of Demolition Team v. Atty. Brain Masweng
Gr. 165003
February 2, 2010
FACTS:
Respondents members of the Ibaloi tribe, an indigenous cultural tribe of Baguio City and Benguet
Province. Their ancestors were grantees of a survey plan approved by the Director of Lands in 1920.
Currently, they have pending petitions before the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP)
for the validation of ancestral land claims covering a parcel of land in Resident Section "J" in Baguio
City and Tuba, Benguet. A portion of the land being claimed by petitioners overlaps with the Baguio
Dairy Farm, a government reservation under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture (DA).
On June 29, 2003, respondents filed a petition for injunction (with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order [TRO] and/or a writ of preliminary injunction) with the NCIP seeking to
enjoin the mayor of Baguio City and the head of the citys demolition team from implementing
Demolition Order No. 17, series of 2003.The order, issued by the office of the mayor upon complaint
of the DA, directs the demolition of shanties and other structures within the premises of the Baguio
Dairy Farm belonging to private respondents which were then undergoing construction or were
recently built without the required permits.
Petitioners contend that injunction, as an original and principal action, falls within the jurisdiction of
the regular courts. The NCIP may issue TROs and writs of preliminary injunction only as an auxiliary
remedy to a pending case before it. Petitioners also assert that there was no factual and legal basis
for the NCIPs issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
ISSUE:
Whether private respondents were not entitled to the preliminary injunction issued by NCIP?

HELD:
The claim of respondents on the subject land is still pending before the NCIP. Thus, their rights are
mere expectations, not the present and unmistakable right required for the grant of the provisional
remedy of injunction.9 Moreover, the structures subject of the demolition order were either built or
being constructed without the requisite permit at the time the demolition order was issued in 2003.
Hence, private respondents were not entitled to the preliminary injunction issued by the NCIP.
The instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
80613 dated March 31, 2004 and its resolution dated July 23, 2004 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
1avvphi1

The resolution dated July 21, 2003 of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples granting the
application for writ of preliminary injunction is also hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.