Court decisionSource checked
Cruz and Europa v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
G.R. No. 135385 · 2000 · Indigenous peoples and ancestral domains
Source checked. The source check identifies the document; it does not verify every transcribed word or its current legal effect. Recovered or scanned text may contain errors. Compare the wording and subsequent history with the linked legal source.
DIGITAL P. 43 / 101
dismal experience of projects in Latin America.[243] The World Bank now seeks to apply its current policy on
IPs to some of its projects in Asia. This policy has provided an influential model for the projects of the Asian
Development Bank.[244]
The 1987 Philippine Constitution formally recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs and declares as a State policy
the promotion of their rights within the framework of national unity and development.[245] The IPRA
amalgamates the Philippine category of ICCs with the international category of IPs,[246] and is heavily
influenced by both the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169 and the United Nations (UN)
Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[247]
ILO Convention No. 169 is entitled the "Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent
Countries"[248] and was adopted on June 27, 1989. It is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and many other international instruments on the prevention of discrimination.[249] ILO
Convention No. 169 revised the "Convention Concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other
Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries" (ILO No. 107) passed on June 26, 1957.
Developments in international law made it appropriate to adopt new international standards on indigenous
peoples "with a view to removing the assimilationist orientation of the earlier standards," and recognizing the
aspirations of these peoples to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic
development."[250]
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 foreign in origin or derivation.[251] Largely unpopulist, the present legal
system has resulted in the alienation of a large sector of society, specifically, the indigenous peoples. The
histories and cultures of the indigenes are relevant to the evolution of Philippine culture and are vital to the
understanding of contemporary problems.[252] It is through the IPRA that an attempt was made by our
legislators to understand Filipino society not in terms of myths and biases but through common experiences in
the course of history. The Philippines became a democracy a centennial ago and the decolonization process still
continues. If the evolution of the Filipino people into a democratic society is to truly proceed democratically,
i.e., if the Filipinos as a whole are to participate fully in the task of continuing democratization,[253] it is this
Court's duty to acknowledge the presence of indigenous and customary laws in the country and affirm their co-
existence with the land laws in our national legal system.
With the foregoing disquisitions, I vote to uphold the constitutionality of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of
1997.
[1] Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law
School.
[2] The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 67, Summer 2000, No. 3, p. 573.
[3] Dominium is distinguished from imperium which is the government authority possessed by the state
expressed in the concept of sovereignty-- Lee Hong Hok v. David, 48 SCRA 372, 377 [1972].
If your browser cannot display the PDF, use Download original. Original access follows the same document permissions.