Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

Petitioners argue that RA 8371, the Indigenous Peoples Right Act (IPRA) is unconstitutional based on the following grounds inter alia:

1. Grants ownership of natural resources to indigenous peoples (IP).2. Sec. 5- provides that Ancestral domains, even public lands, are private but at the same time community property of IP.3. Sec 57- provides priority rights in harvesting.4. That by providing an all encompassing, general, definition of ancestral domains, even private lands are counted, infringing on the rights of private owners.5. IPRA provisions violate due process clause of the Constitution by making customary laws applicable.6. Sec 52.- Upon certification of NCIP of a land as ancestral domain, the jurisdiction of public offices are terminated.7. That in face of ambiguity, interpretation shall be in favor of the IP.8. Infringes on the Presidents power of control given that their relationship is characterized as lateral and autonomous.

A group of intervenors (composed of hundreds of groups), the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and Haribon et al, file a Motion to Intervene to join the NCIP in defending IPRA. Defend the constitutionality of IPRA. Claim that state has responsibility to protect the rights of the disadvantaged. Court vote 7-7 Dismiss: Justice Mendoza- dismiss on the ground that it is not a justiciable controversy and no standing to question the constitutionality. Grant. Given votes were equally divided, the case was re-deliberated on, yet vote stayed the same. Based on rule 56, Sec 7 (Rules of Civil Procedure), the petition is DISMISSED.