Cruz and Europa v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

construction because this has been disturbing our people especially in the Cordilleras. So, if there could be, if our lawyers or the secretariat could just propose a provision for incorporation here so that maybe the right to consultation and the right to be compensated when there are damages within their ancestral lands. CHAIRMAN FLAVIER. Yes, very well taken but to the best of my recollection both are already considered in subsequent sections which we are now looking for. HON. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FLAVIER. First of all there is a line that gives priority use for the indigenous people where they are. Number two, in terms of the mines there is a need for prior consultation of source which is here already. So, anyway it is on the record that you want to make sure that the secretariat takes note of those two issues and my assurance is that it is already there and I will make sure that they cross check. HON. ADAMAT. I second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FLAVIER. Okay, thank you. So we now move to Section 8, there is a Senate version you do not have and if you agree we will adopt that.[127] (Emphasis supplied.) Further, Section 7 makes no mention of any right of ownership of the indigenous peoples over the natural resources. In fact, Section 7(a) merely recognizes the "right to claim ownership over lands, bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by indigenous peoples, sacred places, traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and all improvements made by them at any time within the domains." Neither does Section 7(b), which enumerates certain rights of the indigenous peoples over the natural resources found within their ancestral domains, contain any recognition of ownership vis-a-vis the natural resources. What is evident is that the IPRA protects the indigenous peoples' rights and welfare in relation to the natural resources found within their ancestral domains,[128] including the preservation of the ecological balance therein and the need to ensure that the indigenous peoples will not be unduly displaced when State-approved activities involving the natural resources located therein are undertaken. Finally, the concept of native title to natural resources, unlike native title to land, has not been recognized in the Philippines. NCIP and Flavier, et al. invoke the case of Reavies v. Fianza[129] in support of their thesis that native title to natural resources has been upheld in this jurisdiction.[130] They insist that "it is possible for rights over natural resources to vest on a private (as opposed to a public) holder if these were held prior to the 1935 Constitution."[131] However, a judicious examination of Reavies reveals that, contrary to the position of NCIP and Flavier, et al., the Court did not recognize native title to natural resources. Rather, it merely upheld the right of the indigenous peoples to claim ownership of minerals under the Philippine Bill of 1902. While as previously discussed, native title to land or private ownership by Filipinos of land by virtue of time immemorial possession in the concept of an owner was acknowledged and recognized as far back during the Spanish colonization of the Philippines, there was no similar favorable treatment as regards natural resources. The unique value of natural resources has been acknowledged by the State and is the underlying reason for its consistent assertion of ownership and control over said natural resources from the Spanish regime up to the present.[132] Natural resources, especially minerals, were considered by Spain as an abundant source of revenue to finance its battles in wars against other nations. Hence, Spain, by asserting its ownership over minerals wherever these may be found, whether in public or private lands, recognized the separability of title over lands and that over minerals which may be found therein. [133] On the other hand, the United States viewed natural resources as a source of wealth for its nationals. As the