Case Digest - Cruz vs. DENR - Atty. Lumiqued

Republic of the Philippines
Office of the President

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Cordillera Administrative Region
BENGUET PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Capitol Compound, La Trinidad, Benguet
CASE DIGEST
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources, Secretary of Budget and Management and Chairman and
Commissioners of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP).
G.R. No. 135385 in which the Supreme Court En Banc promulgated a Per
Curiam Resolution on December 6, 2000.
FACTS:
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for
prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the
constitutionality of the following provisions of the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 and its Implementing Rules on the ground that
they amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s 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:
1. Sections 3 (a) and 3 (b),

2. Section 5, in relation to Section 3 (a),
3. Section 6 in relation to Section 3 (a),
4. Section 7,
5. Section 8,
6. Section 57, and
7. Section 58.
In addition, petitioners question the following provisions of the

IPRA defining the powers and jurisdiction of the NCIP and making
customary law applicable to the settlement of disputes involving
ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the ground that these
provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution:
1. Sections 51 to 53 and 59,
1|Page
2. Section 52 (i),
3. Section 63,
4. Section 65, and
5. Section 66.
Finally, petitioners assail the validity of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1
of the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, which provides
that “the administrative relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the
President is characterized as a lateral but autonomous relationship for
purposes of policy and program coordination.” They contend that said
Rule infringes upon the President’s power of control over executive
departments under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution.
Petitioners then prayed that the foregoing sections of the IPRA be

declared unconstitutional and invalid. They likewise prayed that
corresponding writs of prohibition be issued directing the Chairperson
and Commissioners of the NCIP to cease and desist from implementing
the assailed provisions of RA 8371 and its Implementing Rules and
directing the Secretary of Budget and Management to cease and desist
from disbursing funds for the implementation of the assailed provisions
of RA 8371. Finally, they prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus
commanding the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to
comply with his duty of carrying out the State’s constitutional mandate
to control and supervise the exploration, development, utilization and
conservation of Philippine natural resources.
ISSUE:
Will the petition be granted?
HELD:
No. After due deliberation on the petition, the members of the

Supreme Court voted as follows:
Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition. Justice Santiago M.

Kapunan filed an opinion, which Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and
Justices Josue N. Bellosillo, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and Consuelo
Ynares-Santiago join, sustaining the validity of the challenged provisions
of RA 8371. Justice Reynato S. 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
2|Page
large-scale exploitation of natural resources and should be read in
conjunction with Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. On the
other hand, Justice Vicente V. 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 RA
8371.
Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant the petition.
Justice Artemio V. Panganiban filed a separate opinion expressing the
view that Sections 3 (a), 5, 6, 7 (a) (b), 8, and related provisions of RA
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 Jose C. Vitug also filed a separate opinion expressing
the view that Sections 3 (a), 7, and 57 of RA 8371 are unconstitutional.
Justices Jose A. R. Melo, Bernardo P. Pardo, Arturo B. Buena, Minerva P.
Gonzaga-Reyes, and Sabino R. De Leon, Jr. join in the separate opinions
of Justices Panganiban and Vitug.
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.
Then newly appointed Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez took no

part in the voting as she did not participate in the deliberation.
Important Notes:
 A summary of the positions of the Supreme Court Justices who

participated in the deliberation of the case reveals that they are
one in saying that the Constitution vests ownership of natural
resources in the State.
 As per opinion of Justice Kapunan, the concept of native title is

applicable only to lands and not natural resources.
Prepared by:
ATTY. SEVERINO MANUEL G. LUMIQUED

Legal Officer
3|Page
4|Page

Case Digest - Cruz vs. DENR - Atty. Lumiqued

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Cruz vs. DENR - Atty. Lumiqued

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Cruz vs. DENR - Atty. Lumiqued

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Office of the President

1. Sections 3 (a) and 3 (b),

In addition, petitioners question the following provisions of the

1. Sections 51 to 53 and 59,

Petitioners then prayed that the foregoing sections of the IPRA be

Will the petition be granted?

No. After due deliberation on the petition, the members of the

Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition. Justice Santiago M.

As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary

Then newly appointed Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez took no

 A summary of the positions of the Supreme Court Justices who

 As per opinion of Justice Kapunan, the concept of native title is

ATTY. SEVERINO MANUEL G. LUMIQUED

You might also like