Rights of indigenous peoples and Mining rights

Question 1

CARINO DOCTRINE

Answer 1

The traditional rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands should be respected and recognized by the legal system

Question 2

Regalian Doctrine (LMF EDU Manzano)

Answer 2

• states that All natural resources, including (LMF) land, minerals, and forests, are owned by the State.

-grants the State FULL CONTROL over the (EDU) exploration, development, and utilization of these resources.

Question 3

Cariño vs. Insular Government FACTS

Answer 3

Cariño claimed title to a tract of land based on long-term occupation and use. Cariño argued that under the principles of ADVERSE POSSESSION, he should be granted LEGAL TITLE to the land he had been occupying and using, despite the Insular Government’s claim to the land.

Question 4

JUSTICE PUNO’S OPINION

Answer 4

Justice Puno believed that strict adherence to legal formalities should NOT OVERRIDE the principles of equity and fairness.

Question 5

WON IPRA contravene constitution?

Answer 5

No. Not unconstitutional as they are considered ancestral lands.

The rights of indigenous peoples are protected and recognized within the framework of new laws.

Question 6

CRUZ v. NCIP FACTS

Answer 6

Petitioner: Cruz, who claimed ownership of land previously occupied by indigenous peoples.

Question 7

CRUZ v. NCIP ISSUE

Answer 7

whether the NCIP had jurisdiction over the land dispute?

HELD: Yes. NCIP has jurisdiction over disputes involving ancestral domain claims. It is the Commission’s role to adjudicate and protect the rights of indigenous peoples, as established by the law.

Question 8

Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines

Answer 8

Section 77 of PD 705

Question 9

Section 77 of PD 705

Answer 9

“[a]ny person who shall cut, gather, collect, removed timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority … shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code….”

Question 10

PD 705 (1975) SEC. 68

Answer 10

without any authority under a (LLL) license agreement, lease, license or permit, shall be guilty of QUALIFIED THEFT

Question 11

In Sama v. People, was the cutting of DITA tree reasonable?

Answer 11

Yes. Here, the dita tree was intended for constructing a communal toilet. It therefore qualifies beyond reasonable doubt as timber pursuant to Section 77.

Their IP right to preserve cultural integrity entitled them to log the dita tree for building the COMMUNAL TOILET as a lawful exercise and manifestation of this IP right.

It is their CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT to CULTURAL HERITAGE.

Question 12

When can courts exercise the power of judicial review?

Answer 12

A-R-L

1) there must be an ACTUAL CASE calling for the exercise of judicial power;

(2) the question must be RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION; and

(3) the person challenging must have the LEGAL STANDING.

Question 13

Can Courts exercise the power of judicial review in the case of Didipio Earth-Savers’ Multi-Purpose Association v. Gozun?

Answer 13

Yes. There exists an ACTUAL CONTROVERSY involving a clash of legal rights as RA 7942 has been enacted, DAO 96-40 has been approved and FTAAs have been entered into.

Actual eviction of the land owners and occupants need not happen for this Court to intervene.

Question 14

FACTS of Didipio Earth-Savers’ Multi-Purpose Association v. Gozun

Answer 14

Didipio Earth-Savers’ Multi-Purpose Association, Inc. (DESAMA) and several individuals FILED A case for PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS filed against officials of (DENR).

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and the Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with the CAMC (Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation), which covered 37,000 hectares in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces.

They argued that these laws and agreements facilitated the UNJUST TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without JUST COMPENSATION and neglected the State’s responsibility to manage natural resources.

Question 15

WON Mining Act of 1995 and FTAA are unconstitutional

Answer 15

No, they are not unconstitutional. The court ruled that the PH Mining act of 1995 and the FTAA were valid, AND did not violate the rights of the petitioners regarding property and resource management.

The taking WAS VAILD AS IT WAS FOR public use. VALID EXCERCISE of eminent domain is now synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare and public convenience

Question 16

Whether or not the State, through Republic Act No. 7942 and the CAMC FTAA, abdicated its primary responsibility to the full control and supervision over natural resources.

Answer 16

YES. the State, through Republic Act No. 7942 and the CAMC FTAA, abdicated its primary responsibility to the full control and supervision over natural resources

Question 17

FACTS Southeast Mindanao Gold V. Balite Portal Mining

Answer 17

ABOUT Diwalwal Gold Rush Area in the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve. In 1991, the DENR designated part of Diwalwal for small-scale mining, which led to the issuance of ore transport permits that Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM) challenged as illegal. The Court of Appeals ruled that the DENR Secretary’s memorandum for further studies did not violate SEM’s rights, emphasizing that those rights were not absolute and could be modified by the state.

Question 18

Issue and ruling in the case of Southeast Mindanao Gold V. Balite Portal Mining

Answer 18

Is EP 113-B Be a source of total and absolute rights?

No. The petitioner’s rights under EP No. 133 are not (ISI) inviolable, sacrosanct or immutable. Being in the nature of a privilege granted by the State, the permit can be revoked, amended or modified by the Chief Executive when the national interest so requires. The court stated that mining permits are privileges granted by the state and can be modified or revoked in the public interest.