Cruz and Europa v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

construction is proper, the whole Constitution is examined in order to determine the meaning of any provision. That construction should be used which would give effect to the entire instrument.[111] Thus, the provisions of the Constitution on State ownership of public lands, mineral lands and other natural resources should be read together with the other provisions thereof which firmly recognize the rights of the indigenous peoples. These, as set forth hereinbefore,[112] include: Section 22, Article II, providing that the State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous peoples within the framework of national unity and development; Section 5, Article XII, calling for the protection of the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being, and for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights and relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains; Section 1, Article XIII, directing the removal or reduction of social, economic, political and cultural inequities and inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good; Section 6, Article XIII, directing the application of the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship in the disposition and utilization of other natural resources, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands; Section 17, Article XIV, decreeing that the State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions; and Section 12, Article XVI, authorizing the Congress to create a consultative body to advise the President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities. Again, as articulated in the Constitution, the first goal of the national economy is the more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth.[113] Equity is given prominence as the first objective of national economic development.[114] The framers of the Constitution did not, by the phrase "subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs," intend to establish a hierarchy of constitutional norms. As explained by then Commissioner (now Chief Justice) Hilario G. Davide, Jr., it was not their objective to make certain interests primary or paramount, or to create absolute limitations or outright prohibitions; rather, the idea is towards the balancing of interests: BISHOP BACANI. In Commissioner Davide's formulation of the first sentence, he says: "The State, SUBJECT TO THE provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS shall guarantee the rights of cultural or tribal communities to their ancestral lands to insure their economic, social and cultural well-being." There are at least two concepts here which receive different weights very often. They are the concepts of national development policies and programs, and the rights of cultural or tribal communities to their ancestral lands, et cetera. I would like to ask: When the Commissioner proposed this amendment, which was the controlling concept? I ask this because sometimes the rights of cultural minorities are precisely transgressed in the interest of national development policies and programs. Hence, I would like to know which is the controlling concept here. Is it the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands or is it national development policies and programs. MR. DAVIDE. It is not really a question of which is primary or which is more paramount. The concept introduced here is really the balancing of interests. That is what we seek to attain. We have to balance the interests taking into account the specific needs and the specific interests also of these cultural communities in like manner that we did so in the autonomous regions.[115] (Emphasis supplied.) B. The provisions of R.A. 8371 do not infringe upon the State's ownership over the natural resources within the ancestral domains. Petitioners posit that IPRA deprives the State of its ownership over mineral lands of the public domain and other