Vitug 1

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

1/14

C[

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

2/14

' .the high tribunal was to hear one of the most contentious national. issues atthat time, and some would remember it as fortuitous albeit suffused withargumentation what it means to be of a land. .

Pockets of demonstrations had already started outside the distinctive1960s gray concrete building, ensconced in a garden df tall and trimmedcypress trees. A phalanx of lawyers, government officials, contending: partiesincluding ethnic group nunS' nt1. priests, and foreign members of non-government organizations-had all turned for this occasion, the outcome of.which promi&ed to be a turning point.

They walked past the shelves of a library of old wood and wax,past rows of hardbound burgundy books of reports and otherthick legal The passageway led to a.low-ceilinged court of carved, darkwooden chairs ranged against a white wall. One out 15. chairs wouldbe

, ' ,' Ivacant, because of a Justice who had just retired; and'that, as fate would haveit, would bring the Court's final decision to a stunning tie.

What brought this scene together was the .a former Supremecburt Justice himself, Isagani Cruz, whose reputation: as a hadearned him a seat in the tribunal more than a decade :baCjk, when PresidentCorazon Aquino at the beginn}ng of a new democraticgovernmerit peisona,llychose him. He served as Justice for eight years.

Now retired, and at age 74; he was pleading his case. ?efore peers who hadfollowed him to a seat on the country's most revered court. But this did notguarantee him an advantage, because he had some featherson the Court while working on a book, Res Gestae, ontheCotirt's brief-historyand how Justices had deliberated on controversial cases.

This particular case laid bare the quest for national patrimony, in anattempt to define a land's origins and made it a treasure for people towhom the land was life itself.

Cruz was asking the Court to outlaw certain of Republic Act No.8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, or IPRA. .by its popular acronym. He questioned the cultural communities being givenrights to claim ancestral domains that. consisted of natural' resources; forestsand bodies of water, burial and worship .grounds.

His petition, filed in September f998, attracted 112 "mtervenors," parties

78

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

3/14

0 ' , .

'that wished to have their p?ints put across against the petitioner and insuppott of the ethnic .

Some were themselves part of the minority that were temporarilygalvanized into unity by the petition. Cruz's claim that IPRA violated the. . . . ' . ' ;

provoked a highly .cl:iarged debate that reached deep into the birthof this country, back to its c

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

4/14

OUR RIGHTS, OUR VICTORIES: Landmark Cases in the Supreme

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

5/14

groups With. strategi,zin:g tirged formulation of a bill to protect their rights,leading to the creation of the Conmrlssion on Ancestral Domain, whichin turnled to the IPRA. . . . .

THE IPRA was draWn. up to and promote the rights of "indigenouscultural .. peoples" within the framework of theConstitutiQn and of national. unity, empowered by the quasi-judicialNational Commission on Indigenpus Peoples (NCIP) that Atty. Candelaria. 'was representing at the court hearing. The NCIP was also one of the main

along with of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR), which had ,issued certificates of ancestral domain claimsto before IPRA was passed.

The NCIP has the power to issue government's fot:mal recognition of anative title, from the and official Torrens title given to privateand !llienaJ:>le agr,icultural lands. ''Ancestral land" pertains to land occupied \- . !by clans, and families that woulii have to show proof of ownership (as in the fcase of the .

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

6/14

VUl< l

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

7/14

owned bY the State and aU it:S natural resources under its full control andsupervision.

The first to speak the during that four-hour long se,ssion inBagliio., former Cr\1z mliy not have entirely convinced the Justices ofhis stand. There would 'be tension, although the Justices were courteous. . . . . 'enough:

One of them, Mendoza, did not think there was an actual' ' !controversy per se in this meaning that no one had been aggrieved. The. ' ' ' .petitioners were nei.ther mming concessionaires, nor were the respondents

property owners. And it wo.uld l>e for that reason, partly, that he would vote. . ' . .against the petition,.short of saying they were arguing on theoretical grounds.Justice Mendoza said; connection with the rights given to the indigenous

. l . '.peoples with respect; to resources, it seems to me to be limited only to granting them priority rights hut in no case does it say here that the national

o I 1 !. goverm:nent is going t? or abdicate its jurisdiction over miningclaims."

cru'z reiterated that the IPRA had too many ambiguous provisions, andthe government could not risk through loose interpretations. 'Another Justice, Leomi;rdo Quisumbing, asked: "Is it not a fact that this law

is an i:roplementation of l;' provision in order to correct a historic,I shall say, mistake of the: c,olonizer in this country? .. I f you are now going toconsider this law as uncmistitutional, would we not in fact be reversing the

. I' ' .

trend of history and continue to commit injustices against our brothers whoare the cultural minorities?"

.See!king reprieve from: thd head of the court, Hilario Davide, Jr., who had. . . 'in the commission on patrimony for the drafting of the 1987

Constitution, Cruz asked in "Is there a question, Mr. Chief Justice?" Cruz" 'appeared to be belittling Quisumbing's remark.

: .' After some minor jousting, the Chief Justice gave Cruz an extension ofhis' io:n the floor. Justice Panganiban wanted to make clear the issue:. . . ' .. h.e Regalian doctrine was.yle tradition studied in every law school. Was this

now going to be overturned?the NCIPand the;intervenors are putting something new to my mind.

They. say they are not asking for a State grant, neither are they usurping public

83

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

8/14

OUR RIGHTS, OUR VICTORIES: Landmark Cases in the Supreme Court I 'land whether agricultural or otherwise, they are merely clauning and this law

0 -now recognizes their claim that they have already titles to these domains andlands even before the Spaniards came here, even befote the.Americans camehere, even before this doctrine was embedded in our laws,"' Panganlban said,

Cruz's ace was that he had the Solicitor General practically on his side,whose turn it was to speak. highly under practice for the, . ' . .Solicitor General, being government's top lawyer, to be on issues putforward by tht petitioners. '

Taking the floor, Solicitor General ru!;ardo Galvez said that he foresawa conflict between the IPRA and Article XII of the Constitution on nationalpatrimony, which needed some "legal But the deh'berationshowed, so far, Cruz and his party had failed to distinguish the deftniti:onof ancestral land whichwas private in nature.from ancestral (icimain which was

communal.Crl}Z and Galvez agreed that DENR should not be deprived of

jurisdiction over natural resources, specifically minrng claims, the mostsensitive and controversial aspect of this entire especially since thePhilippine Mining Act had been signed into law in 1995.

Galvez speculated that "There will come a time when practicallyof the Philippines shall be declared part of the and that80 percent of the country's natural resources would fall within. thesame bracket. The DENR, which the Solicitor General was supposed to berepresenting for the argument, had so far issued certificatetitles of 2.5 m-illionhectares-a figure, he said, that could rise to about 10 million hectares or one-third of the country's total surface of 30 million hectares. "That is.what wefear," he said.

Justice Panganiban then asked: "Mr. Solicitor Genera)., can I then clarifyyour point? You are willing to concede ownership of ancestral insofaras what is involved is only ownership of public agricultural land?" . .Galvez: ''Your honor, that is our theory."

Panganiban: "But not natural resources, inland waters, coastal areas, orforests?"

Galvez: "Yes, your honor, that is our stand."Under questioning from Justice Mendoza, Galvez said that the IPRA did

84

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

9/14

_....... -" .._ - - - - - - -not; "confer ownership" the properties, but that the indigen'ous peoplewere given priority to them. "The law does not say they are the owners of theselands, simply says that they have the right to claim ownership," limited toagricultur.allands, not to areas :where the government needed to maintain ahold the mines. . 'Fhe Solicitor General, ririsyd the prospect of the tribes the. .country, although the idea far-fetched. I t appeared that his strategy was.. - .to ensure that the would keep its hands on the natural resources,and he in catching the attention of some of the Justices who mighthave. been disturbed by image of seeing a minority of the country takingback an enormous chunk of the country. . . . : ;WHEN IT was Atty. Candelaria's turn to speak on behalf of the NCIP, he knewhe was up against lawyers, and any outcome could also weigh

his' hands. Trained by the,Ateneo de Manila University law school and its' 1. . :human righ.ts center, he .had read and studied for this hearing for two months,. '

putting his heart inti> the unde,rstanding of an enormous task.. . .In TheLawofNations arid theNew World, published in 1989 in Canada where. . . . . _;he took up his masters ofla'W at the University of British Columbia, he foundthe material thatwoti ld be the basis for his arguments. It was a bookthat traced the growth of the heritage of various peoples, despite what outsidersthought of them. It provided histories of the Indians of America,the Inuits of Canada, and' of Australia, among others. From these profiles, he extracted experiences similar to those of Filipino ethnic groups.

diSpelled :.the notion of a tribal the IPRA wasrightfully restoring the of cultural communities and giving credence totheir laws. During the colonial past, they were thought of as inferior,the white men exercising their power of sovereignty by casting them out of. - : 'their land and reducing tliem.to mere inhabitants of enclaves.

Standing hefore the he was reminded of a movie that had touchedhim emotionally, that made him see the Philippines as having gone through

historical demise of the;South American country: The Mission, where Jesuittrying to tribe from the greed and threats of petty colonial

officials and bounty hunters.

85

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

10/14

OUR RIGHTS, OUR VICfORJES: Landmark Cases in the Supreme Court'

The meaning of ancestral domain, he said, could not be separated fromthe mineral resources that the domain posst

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

11/14

'_.) .

an expert on anthropological Seated in the gallery that day, Lynch hadresurrected. the Carino in his class and taught his students hownational laws had made an on the indigenous people, the "invisible

as he called them .Havi,rig traveled around, the country to be with the tribes when he wasa paralegal group io'help them, Leonen spoke of them sentimentally,

putting the. tribal world the larger concept of a nationalist frameworkand highlighting the roles of jndigenous peoples as ancestors of the nationwhen Filipinos [were] inQ.ige:nous."

.His position was quite raqical, suggesting that ancestral domains bedeClared private in nature-';V'hich could actually mean calling for a change oflaws t}lat would confer to indigenous communities.

Leonen argued 'the ttibes were "more burdened with their ancestralthan people who co,me from the outside," owing to the practice of their

custO:tl;lS that sometimes resulted in tribal wars. The experiences they had togo through in accomplishing the steps for a certificate or a title led to some

. ' .distrust, as wa5 likely to happen when it came to claiming land, leading themto be.lleve that land had beoomeia commodity for economic survival.. . . : .Panganiban: "S(l now you want the local laws, because foreign

of ownership of natural resources are unknown tothese people who had been taken advantage of, to dispossess them of theseproperties?"

Leonen: "Yes,He .held on to the arriuiets the tribal folk had given him that morning

' . ' .before the session; he all the luck he could get. I f the morning light. . . . . .they .l:J.ad shining on thecourt during the hearing was a certain kind of

it now of how the Justices would decide.THE COURT would be spliniow.n the middle over this case, with seven votingfor and seve'rt Without a majority ruling, the Court had asecond chiince to deliber'ate'on the matter. Without waiting for another Justiceto fill the' seat of the one had retired, the Court voted again. And again, theresult a deadlock. , .,Under the rules of the petition was dismissed.

87

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

12/14

OUR RIGH'IS. OUR VICTORIES: Landmark cases in the Supreme coun .I '

land whether agricultural or otherwise, they are and lawnow recognizes their claim that they have already tides to theselands even before the Spaniards came here, even before the.Americans camehere, even before this doctrine was embedded in our laws," Pangani,ban said,

Cruz's ace was that he had the Solicitor General practically on his side,whose turn it was to speak. I t highly under practice for the

.,. 'Solicitor General, being government's tbp lawyer, to be on issues putforward by tht petitioners .,

Taking the floor, Solicitor General Ricardo Galvez said that he foresawa conflict between the IPRA and Article XII of the Constitution on nationalpatrimony, which needed some "legal But the deliberationshowed, so far, Cruz and his party had failed to distinguish the definitionof ancestral land which was private in nature.from ancestral9cimain which wastraditionally communal.

and Galvez agreed that llle DENR should not be deprived ofjurisdiction over natural resources, specifically minrng claims, the mostsensitive and controversial aspect of this entire exercise, especially since thePhilippine Mining Act had been signed into law in 1995.

Galvez speculated that "There will come a time when practically' .of the Philippines shall be declared as part of the ancestral and

80 percent of the country's natural resources would ran within. thesame bracket. The OENR, which the Solicitor General was supposed to berepresenting for the argument, had so far issued certificatetitles of 2.5 .millionhectares-a figure, he said, that could rise to about 10 million hectares or one-third of the country's total surface of 30 million hectares. "Thai is.what wefear," he said.

Justice Panganiban then asked: "Mr. Solicitor can I then clarifyyour point? You are willing to concede ownership of ancestral insofaras what is involved is only ownership of public agricultural land?" . ..Galvez: "Your honor, that is our theory."

Panganiban: "But not natural resources, inland waters, coastal areas, orforests?"

Galvez: ''Yes, your honor, that is our stand."Under questioning from Justice Galvez said that the IPRA did

84

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

13/14

_...- -- ........ ---------not; "confer ownership" the properties, but that the indigen'ous people

given priority to them. "The law does not say they are the owners of theselands, simply says that they bave the right to claim ownership," limited toagriculturallandsj not to areas :where the government needed to maintain ahold over the mines. 'FheSolicitor General,rirlsyd the prospect of the tribes. .country, although the.idea far-fetched. It appeared that his strategy was. . . 'to ensure that the government,would keep its hands on the natural resources,and he in catching the attention of some of the Justices who mighthave.been disturbed by image of seeing a minority of the country takingback an enormous chun.k of the country. ' ' o I..WHEN IT was Atty. Candeiarla's turn to speak on behalf of the NCIP, he knewhe was. up against lawyers, and any outcome could also weigh. .Trained by the,Ateneo de Manila University law school and itshuman righ,ts center, he .had .read and studied for this hearing for two months,putting his heart into the unde,rstanding of an enormous task.. . .In f!te Law ofNrJti.ons.and the New World, published in 1989 in Canada wherehe took up his masters o.f'Jaw at the University of British Cqlumbia, he foundthe thatwould he the basis for his arguments. It was a bookthat traced the growth of the heritage of various peoples, despite what outsidersthought of them. It provided histories of the Indians of America,the Inuits of Canada, and' aporigines of Australia, among others. From these profiles, he extracted experienceS similar to those of Filipino ethnic groups.

dispelled :.the notion of a tribal the IPRA wasrightfully restoring the of cultural communities and giving credence totheir laws. During the colonial past, they were thought of as inferior,. . .the white men exercising their power of sovereignty by casting them out oftheir iand and reducing mere inhabitants of enclaves.

Standing before the court, he was reminded of a movie that had touchedhim that m'ade hiin see the Philfppines as having gone through

historical demise of tlie;South American country: The Mission, where Jesuittrying to tribe from the greed and threats of petty colonial

offiCials and bounty hunters.

. 85

7/28/2019 Vitug 1

14/14

OUR RIGHTS, OUR VICTORIES: Landmark Gases in the Supreme Cotu\

Itwas a victory of sorts for the indigenous peoples, for it meant.that.theIPRA was to stay. But it also revealed populat misconceptions about and deepapprehensions over the rights of ethnic groups, and showed how coJi!tised anddivided the nation was over its own identity.

Postscript. .As ofFebruary 2011, the l'jational Commission on Indigenous Peoples recorded. .an estima of4.3 "millionheci:an:s of ancestral lands and don;tains combine.d,

with 912,395 "rightsholders" oftitles. Out of that figure, 889,794 hectareshave been registered to the benefit of190,491 rightsholders

..

. .