10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Indeed, non-ICCs/IPs cannot be subjected to the special and limited jurisdiction of the NCIP even if the dispute involves rights of ICCs/IPs since tile NCIP has no power and authority to decide on a controversy involving as well rights of non-ICCs/IPs which may be brought before a court of general jurisdiction within the legal bounds of rights and remedies. Even as a practical concern, non-IPs and non members of ICCs ought to be excepted from the NCIP's competence since it cannot determine the right-duty correlative, and breach thereof, between opposing parties who are ICCs/IPs and non-ICCs/IPs, the controversy necessarily contemplating application of other laws, not only customs and customary law of the ICCs/IPs. In short, the NCIP is only vested with jurisdiction to determine the rights of ICCs/IPs based on customs and customary law in a given controversy against another ICC/IP, but not the applicable law for each and every kind of ICC/IP controversy even against an opposing non-ICC/IP.[66] Anent what Justice Perez described as the "implicit affirmation" done in The City Government of Baguio City v. Masweng[67] of the NCIP's jurisdiction over cases where one of the parties is not ICC/IPs, a careful review of that case would show that the Court merely cited Sections 3(k),[68] 38[69] and 66 of the IPRA and Section 5[70] of NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 dated April 9, 2003, known as the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure Before the NCIP, as bases of its ruling to the effect that disputes or controversies over ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the NCIP-RHO. However, the Court did not identify and elaborate on the statutory basis of the NCIP's "original and exclusive jurisdiction" on disputes or controversies over ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs. Hence, such description of the nature and scope of the NCIP's jurisdiction made without argument or full consideration of the point, can only be considered as an obiter dictum, which is a mere expression of an opinion with no binding force for purposes of res judicata and does not embody the determination of the court.[71] On a final note, the Court restates that under Section 66 of the IPRA, the NCIP shall have limited jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of IPs/ICCs only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group; but if such claims and disputes arise between or among parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group, the proper regular courts shall have jurisdiction. However, under Sections 52(h) and 53, in relation to Section 62 of the IPRA, as well as Section 54, the NCIP shall have primary jurisdiction over adverse claims and border disputes arising from the delineation of ancestral domains/lands, and cancellation of fraudulently-issued CADTs, regardless of whether the parties are non ICCs/IPs, or members of different ICCs/IPs groups, as well as violations of ICCs/IPs rights under Section 72 of the IPRA where both parties belong to the same ICC/IP group. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration are DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63044 21/32