Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

Facts:

Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 135385, December 06, 2000, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa, as citizens and taxpayers, filed an original suit in the Supreme Court for writs of prohibition and mandamus challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of Republic Act No. 8371 (the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, “IPRA”) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. They alleged the law and implementing rules unlawfully deprived the State of ownership and control over lands and natural resources in violation of the regalian doctrine (Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution) and offended other constitutional guarantees; they also sought to enjoin implementation and the disbursement of public funds for the law’s programs and to compel the DENR to perform its supervisory duties over natural resources.

The Court required respondents to comment. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) defended IPRA’s constitutionality; the Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment asserting parts of IPRA are partly unconstitutional; several groups and agencies moved to intervene (including a broad group led by Senator Juan Flavier, the Commission on Human Rights, the Ikalahan and Haribon) and their motions were granted. Oral arguments were heard April 13, 1999; parties and intervenors filed memoranda thereafter.

Petitioners specifically assailed Sections 3(a) and 3(b) (definitions of ancestral domains and lands), Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 (rights over domains/lands), Sections 52[i], 57–59, 63, 65–66 (NCIP powers, priority/resource rules, primacy of customary law), and an NCIP Implementing Rule (Rule VII, Part II, Sec. 1) as unconstitutional for (inter alia) contravening the Regalian Doctrine and depriving private owners of property without due process. They sought declarations of invalidity, writs of prohibition against NCIP and DENR acts and disbursements, and mandamus to DENR to exercise its constitutional control over natural resources.

After deliberation the Court’s vote split seven (7) to seven (7). Seven justices voted to dismiss the petition; among them Justice Kapunan filed an opinion (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago) upholding the challenged provisions; Justice Puno filed an opinion largely sustaining the law with limited exceptions; Justice Mendoza would have dismissed on standing grounds alone. The other seven justices voted to grant the petition in part or reserve judgment on certain provisions; Justice Panganiban (joined by Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga‑Reyes, and De Leon) would have declared key sections unconstitutional; Justice Vitug filed a separate opinion also finding some sections unconstitutional. Beca...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Do petitioners, as citizens and taxpayers, have standing and present a justiciable controversy to challenge the constitutionality of provisions of R.A. 8371 (procedural/justiciability question)?
• Is the petition for writs of prohibition and mandamus the proper remedy and is the controversy ripe for judicial decision (procedural/remedial question)?
• Do the challenged provisions of R.A. 8371 and certain Implementing Rules (Sections 3(a), 3(b), 5, 6, 7, 8, 52[i], 57–59, 63, 65, 66; and NCIP Admin. Order Rule VII, Part II, Sec. 1) contravene the Regalian Doctrine and other provisions of the 1987 Constitution (Substantive — ownership of ancestral domains/lands and State ownership/control of natural resources)?
• Do the provisions vesting expansive powers in the NCIP and giving primacy to customary law in intra‑ and inter‑community disputes violate due p...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)