JOYA vs PCGG

 Facts: Mateo Caparas, then Chairman of the PCGG, through the authority granted bythen Pres. Aquino, signed a Consignment Agreement allowing Christie’s of New York to auction off Old Masters Paintings and the 18 th

and 19th century silverware alleged tobe part of the ill-gotten wealth of Pres. Marcos, his relatives, and cronies, for and in behalf of RP. 35 petitioners in this Special Civil Action for Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order sought to enjoin PCGG from proceeding with the auction sale which nevertheless proceeded on schedule. Petitioners claim that, as Filipino citizens, taxpayers, and artists deeply concerned with the preservation and protection of the country’s artistic wealth and that the paintings and silverware are public properties collectively owned by them and the people in general to view and enjoy as great works of art alleging that they have been deprived of their right to public property without due process of law, they have the legal personality to restrain the respondents who are acting contrary to their public duty to conserve the artistic creations as mandated by Sec. 14-18 of Art. XIV of theConstitution and RA 4846.

Issue: Whether the petition complies with the legal requisites for the Court to exercise its power of judicial review over this case.

Held: NO. Petitioners failed to show that they have the legal standing, i.e. a personal and substantial interest in the case such that they have sustained or would sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged, because they are not the legal owners of the artworks/silverwares or that the valued pieces have become publicly owned since such artworks are in fact owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation, a non-profit, non-stock corporation established to promote non-Philippine arts and the silverwares were in fact gifts to the Marcos couple on their silver wedding anniversary. The mandamus suit cannot prosper because what the petitioners seek is the enjoining of an official act because it is constitutionally infirmed not because they are after the fulfillment of a positive duty required of the respondent public officials which is the only ground for a writ of mandamus to be issued. The taxpayers’ suit cannot prosper as well since the items in question were acquired from private sources and not with public money.

CRUZ VS SECRETARY OF DENR

Former Justice Isagani Cruz, a noted constitutionalist, assailed the validity of the Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA Law) on the ground that the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. The IPRA law basically enumerates the rights of the indigenous peoples over ancestral domains which may include natural resources.

In addition, Cruz et al contend that, by providing for an all-encompassing definition of “ancestral domains” and “ancestral lands” which might even include private lands found within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of said law also violate the rights of private landowners.

ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional.

HELD: The Supreme Court deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation they voted and reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again and the same result transpired. Since there was no majority vote, Cruz’s petition was dismissed and the constitutionality of the IPRA law was sustained. Hence, ancestral domains may include public domain – somehow against the regalian doctrine.

(another digest kase masyado maikli ung nsa taas… hehe.. )

FACTS: Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought this suit for prohibition and mandamus as

citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 8371, otherwise known as

the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.  The

Solicitor General is of the view that the IPRA is partly unconstitutional on the ground that it grants ownership

over natural resources to indigenous peoples and prays that the petition be granted in part.  The Commission

on Human Rights asserts that IPRA is an expression of the principle of parens patriae and that the State has

the responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who are at a serious disadvantage like

indigenous people.  It prays that the petition be dismissed.

HELD: After due deliberation, 7 voted to dismiss the petition, while 7 other members of the Court voted to grant the petition.  As the votes were equally divided 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