Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, as citizens and taxpayers, filed suit for prohibition and mandamus. They challenged provisions of R.A. 8371, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and its Implementing Rules. They argued that Sections 3(a) and (b), 5, 6, 7, 8, 57 and 58 unlawfully deprived the State of ownership over public lands and natural resources, contrary to the Regalian doctrine in Section 2, Article XII. They also argued that the broad definitions in Sections 3(a) and 3(b) could cover private lands and so violated the rights of private landowners. They further assailed Sections 51 to 53, 52[i], 59, 63, 65 and 66 on NCIP powers and customary law as violating due process. In addition, they attacked an NCIP rule describing the NCIP's relationship to the Office of the President as 'lateral but autonomous', citing the President's power of control. The NCIP defended the law. The Solicitor General considered the IPRA partly unconstitutional for granting ownership over natural resources. Sen. Flavier and indigenous groups, the Commission on Human Rights, and Ikalahan/Haribon intervened to defend the IPRA. Oral arguments were held on April 13, 1999.

1. 1Whether the IPRA provisions on ancestral domains, ancestral lands and the rights of indigenous peoples over natural resources violate the Regalian doctrine in Section 2, Article XII.
2. 2Whether the IPRA provisions on NCIP jurisdiction and customary law violate due process, and whether the NCIP rule infringes the President's power of control.
3. 3What disposition follows when the Court is equally divided.

The Court did not reach a majority on the merits. Seven Justices voted to dismiss the petition. Justice Kapunan, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing and Santiago, sustained the challenged provisions. Justice Puno sustained them except Section 1, Part II, Rule III of NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, and read Section 57 as dealing with the large-scale exploitation of natural resources, in conjunction with Section 2, Article XII. Justice Mendoza voted to dismiss only because the petition raised no justiciable controversy and the petitioners lacked standing. Seven other Justices voted to grant the petition. Justice Panganiban found Sections 3(a)(b), 5, 6, 7(a)(b), 8 and related provisions unconstitutional, and reserved judgment on Sections 58, 59, 65 and 66. Justice Vitug found Sections 3(a), 7 and 57 unconstitutional. Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and De Leon joined them. The votes were equally divided and the necessary majority was not obtained. After redeliberation the vote was unchanged. Under Rule 56, Section 7, the petition was dismissed. The separate opinions were attached and made integral parts of the Resolution. Because the Court was deadlocked, the dismissal leaves the IPRA in force without a binding ruling on its validity. Disposition: petition dismissed.