04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Constitution AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS shall guarantee the rights of cultural or tribal communities to their ancestral lands to insure their economic, social and cultural well-being." There are at least two concepts here which receive different weights very often. They are the concepts of national development policies and programs, and the rights of cultural or tribal communities to their ancestral lands, et cetera. I would like to ask: When the Commissioner proposed this amendment, which was the controlling concept? I ask this because sometimes the rights of cultural minorities are precisely transgressed in the interest of national development policies and programs. Hence, I would like to know which is the controlling concept here. Is it the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands or is it national development policies and programs. MR. DAVIDE. It is not really a question of which is primary or which is more paramount. The concept introduced here is really the balancing of interests. That is what we seek to attain. We have to balance the interests taking into account the specific needs and the specific interests also of these cultural communities in like manner that we did so in the autonomous regions.[115] (Emphasis supplied.) B. The provisions of R.A. 8371 do not infringe upon the State's ownership over the natural resources within the ancestral domains. Petitioners posit that IPRA deprives the State of its ownership over mineral lands of the public domain and other natural resources,[116] as well as the State's full control and supervision over the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources.[117] Specifically, petitioners and the Solicitor General assail Sections 3 (a),[118] 5,[119] and 7[120] of IPRA as violative of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution which states, in part, that "[a]ll lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State."[121] They would have the Court declare as unconstitutional Section 3(a) of IPRA because the inclusion of natural resources in the definition of ancestral domains purportedly results in the abdication of State ownership over these resources. I am not convinced. Section 3(a) merely defines the coverage of ancestral domains, and describes the extent, limit and composition of ancestral domains by setting forth the standards and guidelines in determining whether a particular area is to be considered as part of and within the ancestral domains. In other words, Section 3(a) serves only as a yardstick which points out what properties are within the ancestral domains. It does not confer or recognize any right of ownership over the natural resources to the indigenous peoples. Its purpose is definitional and not declarative of a right or title. The specification of what areas belong to the ancestral domains is, to our mind, important to ensure that no unnecessary encroachment on private properties outside elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882 96/148