The Regalian Doctrine as embodied in the Philippine Constitution

The Regalian Doctrine and the Philippine Constitution

The Regalian Doctrine is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the country’s earlier Constitutions. In the 1987 Constitution, Section 2 of Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) provides the following:

Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

The abovementioned provision provides that except for agricultural lands for public domain which alone may be alienated, forest or timber, and mineral lands, as well as all other natural resources must remain with the State, the exploration, development and utilization of which shall be subject to its full control and supervision albeit allowing it to enter into coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing agreements, or into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization.

The said provision in the 1987 Philippine Constitution had its roots in the 1935 Philippine Constitution. Section 1 of Article XIII (Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources) of the 1935 Philippine Constitution provides the following:

Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

Then in the 1973 Philippine Constitution, the classifications of land and the Regalian Doctrine are provided under Section 8, Article XIV (The National Economy and The Patrimony of The Nation), which states the following:

Section 8. All lands of public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, or resettlement lands of the public domain, natural resources shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploration, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twentyfive years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than development of water power, in which cases, beneficial use may by the measure and the limit of the grant.

As shown in the above provisions, the 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber. Meanwhile, the 1973 Constitution provided the following classifications: agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and grazing lands, and such other classes as may be provided by law, giving the government great leeway for classification. However, the 1987 Constitution reverted to the 1935 Constitution classification with one addition—national parks. Of these classifications, only agricultural lands may be alienated. Prior to Proclamation No. 1064 of May 22, 2006, Boracay Island had never been expressly and administratively classified under any of these grand divisions. Boracay was an unclassified land of the public domain.

To know more about the Regalian Doctrine, read the following article: The Regalian Doctrine.

Republic Act No. 8371—The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997

R.A. No. 8371—The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997

Republic Act (RA) No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, has been around for almost fifteen years to recognize and protect the rights of the Indigenous People of the Philippines. More specifically, RA No. 8371 is an act to recognize, protect, and promote the rights of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous people, creating a national commission of indigenous people, establishing implementing mechanisms, appropriating funds therefor, and for other purposes. In simple words, the said Act provides indigenous peoples (IPs) the right to their ancestral domains and lands.

Indigenous peoples share distinctive traits that set them apart from the Filipino mainstream. While the mainstream Filipinos are Christians, the indigenous people are the non-Christians. Accordingly, the IPs “live in less accessible, marginal, mostly upland areas. They have a system of self-government not dependent upon the laws of the central administration of the Republic of the Philippines. They follow ways of life and customs that are perceived as different from those of the rest of the population” (Cruz v. DENR).

Ancestral domains, based on the definition provided in RA No. 8371, transcend physical and residential territories to include areas of spiritual, cultural and traditional practices. Ancestral domains, as defined in the IPRA, “refer to all areas generally belonging to [Indigenous Cultural Communities] ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators.”

Ancestral lands, which are part of ancestral domains, are defined in RA No. 8371 as lands “occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.”

RA No. 8371 provides IPs’ the rights to ancestral domains, which include the right of ownership, right to develop lands and natural resources, right to stay in the territories, right in case of displacement (temporary or permanent resettlement and right to return), right to regulate entry of migrants, right to safe and clean air and water, right to claim parts of reservations (except those intended for common public welfare and service) and the right to resolve conflict. For ancestral lands, in particular, IPs have the right to transfer land/property rights to/among members of the same ICCs/IPs and the right to redeem the property in case of transfers that raise questions on consent given by IPs and transfers made with unjust considerations and/or prices.

IPs in the Philippines can claim ownership of their ancestral domains in three different ways, which include the following—(1) by virtue of a native title, getting formal recognition of ownership by acquiring a certificate of ancestral domain title (CADT); (2) certificate of ancestral land title (CALT) from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)-Ancestral Domains Office (ADO); or (3) by securing a certificate of title by virtue of “Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration Act 496. A native title, according to RA No. 8371, “refers to pre-conquest rights to land and domains, which, as far back as memory reaches, have been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.” A CALT or CADT, on the other hand, is granted by the government and is provided for by law to those IPs who wish to obtain these titles. The IPRA, specifically Section 12, also states that IPs have the option to acquire certificates of title under the provisions of the amended Commonwealth Act No. 141. This Act follows the Torrens System of land registration and titles issued under this system are called Torrens titles.