04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 1987 Constitution[101]to protect the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands and ancestral domains. Nonetheless, they contend that the recognition and protection under IPRA of the right of ownership of indigenous peoples over ancestral lands and ancestral domains are far in excess of the legislative power and constitutional mandate of the Congress,[102] since such recognition and protection amount to the alienation of lands of the public domain, which is proscribed under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution expresses the sovereign intent to "protect the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands." In its general and ordinary sense, the term "right" refers to any legally enforceable claim.[103] It is a power, privilege, faculty or demand inherent in one person and incident upon another.[104] When used in relation to property, "right" includes any interest in or title to an object, or any just and legal claim to hold, use and enjoy it.[105] Said provision in the Constitution cannot, by any reasonable construction, be interpreted to exclude the protection of the right of ownership over such ancestral lands. For this reason, Congress cannot be said to have exceeded its constitutional mandate and power in enacting the provisions of IPRA, specifically Sections 7(a) and 8, which recognize the right of ownership of the indigenous peoples over ancestral lands. The second paragraph of Section 5, Article XII also grants Congress the power to "provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains." In light of this provision, does Congress have the power to decide whether ancestral domains shall be private property or part of the public domain? Also, does Congress have the power to determine whether the "extent" of ancestral domains shall include the natural resources found therein? It is readily apparent from the constitutional records that the framers of the Constitution did not intend Congress to decide whether ancestral domains shall be public or private property. Rather, they acknowledged that ancestral domains shall be treated as private property, and that customary laws shall merely determine whether such private ownership is by the entire indigenous cultural community, or by individuals, families, or clans within the community. The discussion below between Messrs. Regalado and Bennagen and Mr. Chief Justice Davide, then members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, is instructive: MR. REGALADO. Thank you, Madame President. May I seek some clarifications from either Commissioner Bennagen or Commissioner Davide regarding this phrase "CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF CUSTOMARY LAWS GOVERNING PROPERTY RIGHTS OR RELATIONS in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domain," because ordinarily it is the law on ownership and the extent thereof which determine the property rights or relations arising therefrom. On the other hand, in this proposed amendment the phraseology is that it is the property rights or relations which shall be used as the basis in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domain. I assume there must be a certain difference in the customary laws and our regular civil laws on property. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882 92/148