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.

CASE DIGEST: US vs Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978

Case Title: US vs Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978

Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:

Ah Sing is a fireman at the steamship Shun Chang, a foreign vessel which arrived in the port of Cebu from Saigon. He bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon, brought them on board and had them in his possession during the said trip. The 8 cans of opium were found in the ashes below the boiler of the steamer's engine by authorities who made a search upon anchoring on the port of Cebu. The defendant confessed that he was the owner of the opium and that he had purchased it in Saigon. He dis not confess, however, as to his purpose in buying the opium. He did not say that it was his intention to import the prohibited drug.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime of illegal importation of opium into the Philippine Islands is criminally liable in the Philippines.

Held:

Yes. As stated in the Opium Law, we expressly hold that any person who unlawfully imports or brings any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands, when the prohibited drug is found under this person's control on a vessel which has come direct from a foreign country and is within the jurisdiction limits of the Philippines, is guilty of the crime of illegal importation of opium, unless contrary circumstances exist or the defense proves otherwise.

CASE DIGEST: People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729

Case Title: People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729

Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:

The appellant, in representation of the Attorney General, filed an appeal that urges the revocation of a demurrer sustained by the Court of First Instance of Manila presented by the defendant. The defendant, accused of having illegally smoked opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while the said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half miles from the shores of the city. In the said demurrer, the defendant contended the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court of the said crime, which resulted to the dismissal of the case.

Issue:

Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdictional waters.

Held:

Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed in our internal waters thus the Philippine courts have a right of jurisdiction over the said offense. The Court said that having the opium smoked within our territorial waters even though aboard a foreign merchant ship is a breach of the public order because it causes such drugs to produce pernicious effects within our territory. Therefore, the demurrer is revoked and the Court ordered further proceedings.

CASE DIGEST: US vs Bull, 15 Phil 7

Case Title: US vs Bull, 15 Phil 7

Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:

On December 2, 1908, a steamship vessel engaged in the transport of animals named Stanford commanded by H.N. Bull docked in the port of Manila, Philippines. It was found that said vessel from Ampieng, Formosa carried 674 heads of cattle without providing appropriate shelter and proper suitable means for securing the animals which resulted for most of the animals to get hurt and others to have died while in transit.

This cruelty to animals is said to be contrary to Acts No. 55 and No. 275 of the Philippine Constitution. It is however contended that cases cannot be filed because neither was it said that the court sitting where the animals were disembarked would take jurisdiction, nor did it say about ships not licensed under Philippine laws, like the ships involved.

Issue:

Whether or not the court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board a foreign ship while inside the territorial waters of the Philippines.

Held:

Yes. When the vessel comes within 3 miles from the headlines which embrace the entrance of Manila Bay, the vessel is within territorial waters and thus, the laws of the Philippines shall apply. A crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines if the illegal conditions existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters - regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship settled from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas,

In light of the above restriction, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.