10/12/2019
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
shown by their motion to dismiss, involves a conflicting claim over an ancestral domain.
They seek to apply by analogy the principles in Ignacio v. CFI Bulacan,[1] Ferrer v.
Villamor,[2] Nonan v. Plan,[3] among others, where it was held that the allegations of
tenancy by the defendant in its answer may be used in the determination of the
jurisdiction of the court, and if indeed tenancy exists, the same should be lodged before
the Court of Industrial Relations (now the Department of Agrarian Reform and
Adjudication Board). They also invoke Leoquinco v. Canada Dry Bottling Co.,[4] and
Mindanao Rapid Co. v. Omandam[5] where it was ruled that if allegations of labor
disputes or employer-employee relations are alleged by defendants in their answer and
the same is shown to exist, the Industrial Court (now the National Labor Relations
Commission) takes cognizance of the case.
Petitioners also argue that the Court's interpretation of Section 66[6] of Republic Act
No. 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997," (IPRA) to the effect that the
NCIP shall have jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only
when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group, is
contrary to law and the Constitution. They posit that the State recognizes that each ICC
or IP group is, and has been since time immemorial, governed by their own customary
laws, culture, traditions and governance systems, and has the right to preserve and
develop them as they may deem fit and necessary. Thus, each ICC and IP group did
not, and does not, need an act of Congress such as the IPRA, to enforce their
customary laws among themselves and their respective communities, and more so in
further developing them.
Petitioners insist that claims and disputes within ICCs/IPs and/or between ICCs/IPs
shall be resolved using customary laws, consistent with the State policy under the
Constitution and the IPRA to recognize, respect and protect the customs, traditions and
cultural integrity and institutions of the ICCs/IPs. They claim that cases of disputes
between IPs within the same ICC/IP group are always resolved completely and with
finality in accordance with their customary laws and practice, hence, the interpretation
that the NCIP shall have jurisdiction in cases of disputes among IPs within the same
ICC/IP group is not only absurd but unconstitutional. They aver that even disputes
between different ICCs/IPs shall also fall within the jurisdiction of whatever their
customary laws and practice provide since Section 65[7] of the IPRA does not so
distinguish. They presume that after coexisting for centuries in adjacent ancestral
domains, some of the ICCs/IPs have developed their own indigenous means of settling
disputes between other ICCs/IPs.
With respect to unresolved claims and disputes between different ICCs/IP groups and
between ICCs/IPs and non-IPs, petitioners theorize that they fall under the jurisdiction
of the NCIP pursuant to the provisions of the IPRA. They cite the concurring opinion of
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. that the second and third parts of Section 66 of the law
only provide for a condition precedent that is merely procedural and does not limit the
NCIP jurisdiction over disputes involving the rights of ICC/IPs. They contend that such
interpretation is consistent with other provisions of the IPRA which lay out NCIP's
jurisdiction under Sections 46(g),[8] 62,[9] 69,[10] 70[11] and 72[12] of the IPRA.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63044
2/32