Case Digest (G.R. No. 135385)
Facts:
Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, as citizens and taxpayers, filed an original petition for prohibition and mandamus challenging provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997) and its Implementing Rules as violative of the regalian doctrine (Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution) and other constitutional guarantees. Respondents including the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the Secretaries of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Department of Budget and Management, and multiple intervenors appeared; oral arguments were heard April 13, 1999, and the case was decided en banc on December 06, 2000. The Court was equally divided (seven to seven) after redeliberation and, pursuant to Rule 56, Sec. 7, Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition was dismissed; separate opinions of Justices Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza and Panganiban were filed and made integral.
Issues:
- Does Republic Act No. 8371 and its Implementing Rules unlawfully deprive the State of ownership over lands of the public domain and natural resources in violation of the regalian doctrine, Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution?
- Do the provisions vesting exclusive delineation and adjudicatory authority in the NCIP and giving primacy to customary law in disputes involving ancestral domains and lands violate the due process clause?
- Does Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of NCIP Administrative Order No. 1 unlawfully limit the President’s power of control over executive departments under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution?
Ruling:
The petition was DISMISSED for lack of a majority decision after redeliberation, pursuant to Rule 56, Sec. 7, Rules of Civil Procedure. Seven members of the Court voted to dismiss the petition (several upholding the constitutionality of the challenged provisions); seven voted to grant relief on various grounds; the tie resulted in dismissal and the status quo was maintained. The separate opinions of five Justices were attached to the resolution.
Ratio:
The opinions sustaining the challenged provisions reasoned that the IPRA recognizes a form of native title and an indigenous concept of communal ownership that does not ipso facto divest the State of ownership, control or supervision of natural resources under Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution, and that the statute circumscribes indigenous rights (e.g., management, priority use, consent and conservation duties) subject to existing national laws and safeguards, with NCIP decisions reviewable by the courts. Dissenting opinions concluded that certain provisions effect an unconstitutional abdication of State authority over the public domain and natural resources; because the Court was equally divided these competing legal reasonings produced no binding majority precedent and the petition failed for want of a decision.
Doctrine:
- Rule 56, Sec. 7, Rules of Civil Procedure — an equally divided en banc Court results in dismissal of the petition and maintenance of the status quo.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)