10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly between two (2) mining companies over the same meridional blocks should be settled first by an administrative agency to allow the Executive to determine the company that will assist in the enjoyment and exploitation of our mineral resources under a production sharing or joint venture arrangement within the limitations provided by law. Conflicting claims between two (2) groups of farmers claiming tenancy rights or the status of agrarian reform beneficiaries must be settled by an administrative agency so that the owners of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) could be determined. This is instrumental to achieve the objectives of the agrarian reform program set by the Constitution and specified by law. It is not only that the resolution of a conflict requires specialized knowledge. In order that adjudication can be constitutionally carved out of the judicial sphere and initially put within administrative purview, there must also be a clear showing that the resolution of the conflict is necessary to pursue the implementation of a program provided by law. This will be absent if our interpretation of Section 66 of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act is that the NCIP should have jurisdiction in any and all conflicts for so long as one (1) party belongs to an indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples group. In many of these controversies, it may not even be specialized knowledge in customary law involved but simply general knowledge in existing law. This is the situation in the present case. IV This Court's decision in this case should only be limited to what is necessary to resolve the conflict as presented by the facts. Any other interpretation of any other provision of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act or the implementing rules promulgated by the NCIP or jointly with any other department might foreclose the proper interpretation when facts, which we cannot now foresee, present themselves. For instance, no provision of the Joint Administrative Order No. 1 of the DAR-DENRLRA-NCIP on "contentious issues" is in controversy in this case. It would be premature to hazard any correct interpretation of any of its provisions absent an actual case. Our opinion may be construed as binding although only obiter. We cannot render advisory opinions risking our institutional inability to foresee all possible factual permutations. Thus, where registered emancipation patents or CLOA's may be questioned should be the proper subject of another case where the facts will properly be laid. It is possible that a Torrens title has been issued or that extrinsic fraud will be present. We cannot yet state, as a rule, that the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary is more definitive as compared with the jurisdiction of a Regional Trial Court applying the provisions of Presidential Decree 1529. Furthermore, the penalties provided by the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act is not in issue in this case. It may not have been properly pleaded. The danger is that it may foreclose future discussion as to the validity of any of its related provisions. I recommend that we keep within the narrow bounds of the issues presented in this elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63044 31/32