Separate Concurring Opinion .
3
G.R. No. 224469
and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. xx x
xxxx
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with
priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
As explicitly stated, all "natural resources are owned by the State." 5
While categories of lands (i.e., lands of public domain and agricultural lands)
were therein provided, there is no qualifier created for timber and other natural
resources. 6 Moreover, while the provision allows the alienation of agricultural
lands, it prohibits the alienation of natural resources. Accordingly, it is
sufficiently apparent that Section 77 punishes the cutting of timber - a natural
resource - regardless of the character of the land where the tree was once
situated.
Consistent with the State's ownership of natural resources, Section 57
of the IPRA accords IPs "priority rights" in the utilization of natural resources.
The fact that the IPRA does not bestow ownership of natural resources has
been discussed in the congressional deliberations therefor: 7
HON. DOMINGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to make
a very short Statement. Earlier, Mr. Chairman, we have decided to remove
the provisions on natural resources because we all agree that belongs to
the State. Now, the plight or the rights of those indigenous communities
living in forest and areas where it could be exploited by mining, by dams,
so can we not also provide a provision to give little protection or either
rights for them to be consulted before any mining areas should be done in
their areas, any logging done in their areas or any dam construction because
this has been disturbing our people especially in the Cordilleras.
6
7
The declaration of State ownership and control over natural resources in the 1935 Constitution was
reiterated in both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
See Professor Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (now Supreme Court Associate Justice), The Indigenous Peoples'
Rights Act: An Overview of Its Contents, 4 [13] The PHILJA Judicial Journal 53-79, (2002): "Look at
the provision in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution: xx x There is a qualifier to land, but no
qualifier to timber. It does not say timber planted on private land, or public or private timber, unlike in
other systems in different parts of the world. In our jurisdiction, timber is always public domain; it
cannot be alienated as timber. Of course, rights to timber can be alienated, but the timber itself cannot
be alienated. And that is, the justification for the Forestry Code's allowance to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources [DENR] to grant a permit for tree-cutting. If it stands on private
land, there is the special tree-cutting permit[.]" (pp. 63-64)
See Justice Kapunan's opinion in.Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, 400 Phil.
904, I 064 (2000).