04/02/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Petitioners also content that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of
"ancestral domains" and "ancestral lands" which might even include private lands
found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) violate the rights of private
landowners.[3]
In addition, petitioners question the provisions of the IPRA defining the powers and
jurisdiction of the NCIP and making customary law applicable to the settlement of
disputes involving ancestral domains and ancestral lands on the ground that these
provisions violate the due process clause of the Constitution.[4]
are:
These provisions
"(1)
Sections 51 to 53 and 59 which detail the process of
delineation and recognition of ancestral domains and which
vest on the NCIP the sole authority to delineate ancestral
domains and ancestral lands;
"(2)
Section 52[i] which provides that upon certification by the
NCIP that a particular area is an ancestral domain and upon
notification to the following officials, namely, the Secretary
of Environment and Natural Resources, Secretary of
Interior and Local Governments, Secretary of Justice and
Commissioner of the National Development Corporation,
the jurisdiction of said officials over said area terminates;
"(3)
Section 63 which provides the customary law, traditions
and practices of indigenous peoples shall be applied first
with respect to property rights, claims of ownership,
hereditary succession and settlement of land disputes, and
that any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation thereof
shall be resolved in favor of the indigenous peoples;
"(4)
Section 65 which states that customary laws and practices
shall be used to resolve disputes involving indigenous
peoples; and
"(5)
Section 66 which vests on the NCIP the jurisdiction over all
claims and disputes involving rights of the indigenous
peoples."[5]
Finally, petitioners assail the validity of Rule VII, Part II, Section 1 of the NCIP
Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, which provides that "the administrative
relationship of the NCIP to the Office of the President is characterized as a lateral but
autonomous relationship for purposes of policy and program coordination." They
contend that said Rule infringes upon the President's power of control over executive
departments under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution.[6]
Petitioners pray for the following:
"(1)
A declaration that Sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 52[I], 57, 58, 59,
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882
4/148