04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly mandated under existing laws to administer the natural resources for the State, which is the owner thereof. To construe Section 52[i] as divesting the State, through the government agencies concerned, of jurisdiction over the natural resources within the ancestral domains would be inconsistent with the established doctrine that all natural resources are owned by the State. C. The provisions of IPRA pertaining to the utilization of natural resources are not unconstitutional. The IPRA provides that indigenous peoples shall have the right to manage and conserve the natural resources found on the ancestral domains, to benefit from and share in the profits from the allocation and utilization of these resources, and to negotiate the terms and conditions for the exploration of such natural resources. [138] The statute also grants them priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains. [139] Before the NCIP can issue a certification for the renewal, or grant of any concession, license or lease, or for the perfection of any production-sharing agreement the prior informed written consent of the indigenous peoples concerned must be obtained.[140] In return, the indigenous peoples are given the responsibility to maintain, develop, protect and conserve the ancestral domains or portions thereof which are found to be necessary for critical watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover, or reforestation.[141] The Solicitor General argues that these provisions deny the State an active and dominant role in the utilization of our country's natural resources. Petitioners, on the other hand, allege that under the Constitution the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources may only be undertaken by the State, either directly or indirectly through co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements. [142] To petitioners, no other method is allowed by the Constitution. They likewise submit that by vesting ownership of ancestral lands and ancestral domains in the indigenous peoples, IPRA necessarily gives them control over the use and enjoyment of such natural resources, to the prejudice of the State.[143] Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution provides in paragraph 1 thereof that the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources must be under the full control and supervision of the State, which may directly undertake such activities or enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements. This provision, however, should not be read in isolation to avoid a mistaken interpretation that any and all forms of utilization of natural resources other than the foregoing are prohibited. The Constitution must be regarded as consistent with itself throughout.[144] No constitutional provision is to be separated from all the others, or to be considered alone, all provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the fundamental law.[145] In addition to the means of exploration, development and utilization of the country's natural resources stated in paragraph 1, Section 2 of Article XII, the Constitution itself states in the third paragraph of the same section that Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by its citizens.[146] Further, elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882 100/148