10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Sec. 66. Jurisdiction of the NCIP. - The NCIP, through its regional offices, shall have jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs; Provided, however, That no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws. For this purpose, a certification shall be issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved, which certification shall be a condition precedent to the filing of a petition with the NCIP. On the other hand, Administrative Order (AO) No. 23-2008,[23] in relation to Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129,[24] designated the court a quo as a special court to hear, try, and decide violations of environmental laws committed within its territorial jurisdiction. Having stated the jurisdiction of the NCIP and the RTC sitting as a special environmental court, We proceed to examine the pertinent allegations in the Complaint[25] constituting petitioners' cause of action. To reiterate, petitioners alleged in their Complaint that they are members of the Ibaloi Tribesmen and that their rightful ownership and possession over the subject property had already been established by testimonial and documentary evidence as far back as 1924.[26] They averred that after their ancestor's death, they continued to possess and exercise ownership over their ancestral land. Respondents' intrusion and usurpation was also alleged, and that respondents' earthmoving activities therein caused destruction of small and full grown trees and sayote plants in their ancestral land. Further, a violation of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued in favor of the respondents was likewise alleged. Petitioners, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs, to wit: (1) issuance of an ex parte 72-hour Environmental Protection Order to immediately stop respondents from their earthmoving activities not only because they violate petitioners' rights under the IPRA above-cited, but also because they failed to comply with the ECC and/or because they operate without such ECC, violative of PD 1586 for posing grave and/or irreparable danger to the environment, life and property; (2) after trial, make the Environmental Protection Order and/or writ of preliminary injunction permanent; (3) recognize the rights of the petitioners as IPs to their ancestral land subject of this case; and (4) compel respondents to restore the denuded areas within the subject land to maintain ecological balance and to compensate petitioners of their damaged resources, among others.[27] Guided by the foregoing, We find that the outright dismissal of the case was not proper. First. The court a quo patently erred in ruling that the NCIP has jurisdiction over the case. Foremost, in Unduran,[28] this Court had already delimited the jurisdiction of the NCIP as provided under Section 66 of the IPRA, viz.: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63937 4/10