An independent legal research libraryRead with context. Verify with confidence.
← Back to library
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. This copy does not establish whether a provision is current, amended, or controlling. Extracted text may contain scanning errors; compare it with the original.

DIGITAL P. 5 / 101
Justice Puno also filed a separate opinion sustaining all challenged provisions of the law with the exception of Section 1, Part II, Rule III of NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, the Rules and Regulations Implementing the IPRA, and Section 57 of the IPRA which he contends should be interpreted as dealing with the large-scale exploitation of natural resources and should be read in conjunction with Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. On the other hand, Justice Mendoza voted to dismiss the petition solely on the ground that it does not raise a justiciable controversy and petitioners do not have standing to question the constitutionality of R.A. 8371. Seven (7) other members of the Court voted to grant the petition. Justice Panganiban filed a separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3 (a)(b), 5, 6, 7 (a)(b), 8, and related provisions of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. He reserves judgment on the constitutionality of Sections 58, 59, 65, and 66 of the law, which he believes must await the filing of specific cases by those whose rights may have been violated by the IPRA. Justice Vitug also filed a separate opinion expressing the view that Sections 3(a), 7, and 57 of R.A. 8371 are unconstitutional. Justices Melo, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon join in the separate opinions of Justices Panganiban and Vitug. As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED. Attached hereto and made integral parts thereof are the separate opinions of Justices Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, and Panganiban. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza and Panganiban JJ., see separate opinion [1] Rollo, p. 114. [2] Petition, Rollo, pp. 16-23. [3] Id. at 23-25. [4] Section 1, Article III of the Constitution states: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws." [5] Rollo, pp. 25-27. [6] Id. at 27-28. [7] Transcript of Stenographic Notes of the hearing held on April 13, 1999, pp. 5-6. SEPARATE OPINION