Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The underlying assumption in the provisions of the law is that the foreign
Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Energy
contractor manages the mineral resources just like the foreign contractor
in a service contract. By allowing foreign contractors to manage or operate Resources, G.R. 135385, December 6, 2000.
all the aspects of the mining operation, RA 7942 has, in effect, conveyed
beneficial ownership over the nation‘s mineral resources to these FACTS:
contractors, leaving the State with nothing but bare title thereto. Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition
and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality
The same provisions, whether by design or inadvertence, permit a of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the
circumvention of the constitutionally ordained 60-40% capitalization
requirement for corporations or associations engaged in the exploitation, Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing
development and utilization of Philippine natural resources. rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of
the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful
When parts of a statute are so mutually dependent and connected as deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as
conditions, considerations, inducements or compensations for each other well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the
as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, then if
some parts are unconstitutional, all provisions that are thus dependent, regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.
conditional or connected, must fail with them.
ISSUE:
Under Article XII Section 2 of the 1987 Charter, foreign owned corporations Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?
are limited only to merely technical or financial assistance to the State for
large scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals, petroleum
HELD:
and other mineral oils.
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution.
Second Issue: RP Government-WMCP FTAA is a Service Contract Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the
ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral
The FTAA between he WMCP and the Philippine government is likewise domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains
unconstitutional since the agreement itself is a service contract.
remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the
Section 1.3 of the FTAA grants WMCP a fully foreign owned corporation, ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely
the exclusive right to explore, exploit, utilize and dispose of all minerals gives them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources
and by-products that may be produced from the contract area.‖ Section 1.2 are found, the right to the small scale utilization of these resources, and
of the same agreement provides that EMCP shall provide all financing, at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and
exploitation.
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the Spanish Law: "Where such possessors shall not be able to produce
lands of the public domain. They are private lands and belong to the title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall show that ancient
ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title that possession, as a valid title by prescription." For cultivated land, 20
years, uninterrupted, is enough. For uncultivated, 30.
existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the
right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral Applicant's possession was not unlawful, and no attempt at any
domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right such proceedings against him or his father ever was made.
to alienate the same.
Every native who had not a paper title is not a trespasser.
Carino vs. Insular Government, G.R. No. 2869, There must be a presumption against the government when a
private individual claims property as his or her own. It went so far
March 25, 1907; 212 US 449. as to say that the lands will be deemed private absent contrary
proof.
Sec. 2 Art. XII 1987 Constitution
FACTS:
Carino is an Igorot of the Province of Benguet, where the land lies Points to ponder:
filed for writ of error because the CFI and SC dismissed his petition
for application 1. What came first: sovereignty or property rights?
2. What is the significance of the dates in the land
For more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1899, he registration laws?
and his ancestors had held the land as recognized owners by the
Igorots. (grandfather maintain fences for holding cattle>father had
cultivated parts and used parts for pasturing cattle>he used it for
pasture)
1901: petition alleging ownership under the mortgage law and the
lands were registered to him but process only established
possessory title