Advanced Search
Search Results
172 total results found
V. THE IPRA IS A RECOGNITION OF OUR ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE INDIGENOUS INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT.
The indigenous movement can be seen as the heir to a history of anti-imperialism stretching back to prehistoric times. The movement received a massive impetus during the 1960's from two sources. First, the decolonization of Asia and Africa brought into the l...
CONCLUSION
The struggle of the Filipinos throughout colonial history had been plagued by ethnic and religious differences. These differences were carried over and magnified by the Philippine government through the imposition of a national legal order that is mostly f...
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:An issue of grave national interest indeed deserves a proper place in any forum and, when it shows itself in a given judicial controversy, the rules of procedure, like locus standi, the propriety of the specific remedy invoked, or the principle of hi...
A Historical Backdrop on the Indigenous Peoples
The term "indigenous" traces its origin to the Old Latin word indu, meaning "within." In the sense the term has come to be used, it is nearer in meaning to the Latin word indigenus, which means "native."[3] "Indigenous" refers to that which originated or has ...
The Constitutional Policies on Indigenous Peoples
The framers of the 1987 Constitution, looking back to the long destitution of our less fortunate brothers, fittingly saw the historic opportunity to actualize the ideals of people empowerment and social justice, and to reach out particularly to the margi...
Preliminary Issues
A. The petition presents an actual controversy. The time-tested standards for the exercise of judicial review are: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) t...
Substantive Issues Primary Issue
The issue of prime concern raised by petitioners and the Solicitor General revolves around the constitutionality of certain provisions of IPRA, specifically Sections 3(a), 3(b), 5, 6, 7, 8, 57, 58 and 59. These provisions allegedly violate Section 2, Ar...
Corollary Issues
A. IPRA does not violate the Due Process clause. The first corollary issue raised by petitioners is whether IPRA violates Section 1, Article III of the Constitution, which provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without du...
SEPARATE OPINION
MENDOZA, J.:This suit was instituted to determine the constitutionality of certain provisions of R.A. No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act. Petitioners do not complain of any injury as a result of the application of the statute to th...
The Case
The Case This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33906:a) Decision[2] dated May 29, 2015 affirming the conviction of petitioners Diosdado Sama y Hinupas and Bandy Masanglay y Aceve...
The Trial Court's Ruling
By Decision[16] dated August 24, 2010, the trial court convicted the accused, as charged, thus: ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds accused DIOSDADO SAMA y HINUPAS, DEMETRIO MASANGLAY y ACEVEDA, and BANDY MASANGLAY y ACEVEDA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as (princ...
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
Petitioners asserted anew their IP right to harvest the dita tree logs as part and parcel of the Iraya-Mangyan IPs' rights to cultural integrity and ancestral domain and lands. In particular, they claimed that: (1) pursuant to their cultural practices, they fo...
The Court of Appeals' Ruling
In its Decision[23] dated May 29, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It focused on the failure of the accused to present any license agreement, lease, or permit authorizing them to log the dita tree. It also faulted the accused for relying on IPRA as the sou...
The Present Petition
Petitioners now seek affirmative relief from the Court, reiterating their plea for acquittal.[25]They maintain that their act of harvesting the dita tree is part and parcel of the Iraya-Mangyans' rights to cultural integrity and ancestral domain and lands. In ...
Issues
Is there evidence beyond reasonable doubt, first, of petitioners' ethnicity as Iraya-Mangyan IPs, and second, of the elements of violation of Section 77 of PD 705, as amended? As for the latter, is there evidence beyond reasonable doubt that: the dita tre...
Ruling
We acquit.Section 2 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court defines the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt: SECTION 2. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt. — In a criminal case, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond a reaso...
i. Constitutional basis of IP rights
Ha Data Tawahig v. Lapinid[70] explains the expansive breadth of the legal recognition of IP rights by our Constitution: In turn, the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act's provisions on self- governance and empowerment, along with those on the right to ancestra...
ii. Spectrum of IP rights
Conceptually, IP rights fall along a spectrum, the cornerstone of which is their degree of connection to the land.[71] Land is the central element of their existence.[72] Civil law land titles do not exist in its economic and social system. The concept of indi...
CHAPTER III Rights to Ancestral Domains
SECTION 7. Rights to Ancestral Domains. — The rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected. Such rights shall include:a) Right of Ownership. — The right to claim ownership over lands, bodies of ...
Disposition
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 29, 2015 and Resolution dated April 11, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33906 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners DIOSDADO SAMA y HINUPAS, BANDY MASANGLAY y ACEVEDA and accused Dem...