Cruz and Europa v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources

IPRA is not absolute, for the law speaks merely of primacy of use.[176] The IPRA prescribes the application of such customary laws where these present a workable solution acceptable to the parties, who are members of the same indigenous group. This interpretation is supported by Section 1, Rule IX of the Implementing Rules which states: RULE IX. JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS Section 1. Primacy of Customary Law. All conflicts related to ancestral domains and lands, involving ICCs/IPs, such as but not limited to conflicting claims and boundary disputes, shall be resolved by the concerned parties through the application of customary laws in the area where the disputed ancestral domain or land is located. All conflicts related to the ancestral domains or lands where one of the parties is a non-ICC/IP or where the dispute could not be resolved through customary law shall be heard and adjudicated in accordance with the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedures Before the NCIP to be adopted hereafter. (Emphasis supplied.) The application of customary law is limited to disputes concerning property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral domains,[177] where all the parties involved are members of indigenous peoples,[178] specifically, of the same indigenous group. It therefore follows that when one of the parties to a dispute is a non-member of an indigenous group, or when the indigenous peoples involved belong to different groups, the application of customary law is not required. Like any other law, the objective of IPRA in prescribing the primacy of customary law in disputes concerning ancestral lands and domains where all parties involved are indigenous peoples is justice. The utilization of customary laws is in line with the constitutional policy of recognizing the application thereof through legislation passed by Congress. Furthermore, the recognition and use of customary law is not a novel idea in this jurisdiction. Under the Civil Code, use of customary law is sanctioned, as long as it is proved as a fact according to the rules of evidence,[179] and it is not contrary to law, public order or public policy.[180] Moreover, the Local Government Code of 1991 calls for the recognition and application of customary laws to the resolution of issues involving members of indigenous peoples. This law admits the operation of customary laws in the settling of disputes if such are ordinarily used in barangays where majority of the inhabitants are members of indigenous peoples.[181] B. Section 1, Part II, Rule VII of the Implementing Rules of IPRA does not infringe upon the President's power of control over the Executive Department. The second corollary issue is whether the Implementing Rules of IPRA violate Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution, which provides that: The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. The assailed provision of the Implementing Rules provides: Rule VII. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)