In the Philippines, the intersection of environmental conservation and land rights is a complex legal landscape. It is a tug-of-war between the State’s mandate to protect "cradle of life" ecosystems and the constitutional rights of individuals and indigenous communities who have inhabited these lands since time immemorial.
I. The Statutory Framework
The governance of protected areas in the Philippines is primarily anchored on two landmark pieces of legislation that often find themselves in a delicate dance of overlap and occasional friction.
- NIPAS Act of 1992 (RA 7586) and E-NIPAS Act of 2018 (RA 11038): The National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) is the primary legal mechanism for establishing and managing protected areas (PAs). The 2018 amendment (E-NIPAS) significantly expanded the number of legislated PAs and strengthened the administrative powers of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
- The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA or RA 8371): IPRA recognizes the "Ancestral Domains" of Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) and Indigenous Peoples (IPs). Crucially, it acknowledges that these lands are private, albeit communal, and were never part of the public domain under the Regalian Doctrine.
II. Tenure Instruments in Protected Areas
Because "Protected Area" status does not automatically extinguish existing rights, the law provides specific mechanisms to formalize tenure for those living within these zones.
1. Protected Area Community-Based Resource Management Agreement (PACBRMA)
This is a tenurial instrument issued by the DENR to organized groups of tenured migrant communities. It grants them the right to occupy and sustainably manage portions of the PA for a period of 25 years, renewable for another 25.
- Tenured Migrants: Defined as those who have actually and continuously occupied a portion of the PA for at least five years prior to its designation and are solely dependent therein for subsistence.
2. Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT)
Where a Protected Area overlaps with an Ancestral Domain, the IPRA takes precedence regarding land ownership. IPs are not "tenants" of the State; they are owners. However, the E-NIPAS Act mandates that the management of these areas must still adhere to the Protected Area Management Plan (PAMP), requiring a harmonization of the PAMP with the IPs' Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP).
III. The Regalian Doctrine vs. Native Title
A central tension in Philippine land law is the Regalian Doctrine, which posits that all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership belong to the State.
Legal Landmark: In Cruz v. Secretary of Environment (2000), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of IPRA, affirming that "Native Title" exists as an exception to the Regalian Doctrine. This means that if an IP community has held land since time immemorial, the land was never public forest or a park to begin with, even if the State later declares it a Protected Area.
IV. Prohibitions and Restrictions
Even with a valid tenure instrument, "ownership" or "occupancy" within a Protected Area is not absolute. Under Section 20 of the E-NIPAS Act, several acts are strictly prohibited:
- Poaching and Hunting: Even for residents, unless for traditional or religious use by IPs.
- Introduction of Exotic Species: To prevent ecological disruption.
- Commercial Infrastructure: Prohibited without a Special Use Agreement within Protected Areas (SAPA) and an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).
- Mining and Energy Extraction: Generally prohibited in "strict protection zones," though certain "multiple-use zones" may allow for regulated activities if deemed compatible with the PAMP.
V. Critical Challenges in Tenure Security
| Challenge | Impact on Tenure |
|---|---|
| Overlapping Jurisdictions | Conflicts between the PAMB (Protected Area Management Board) and the NCIP (National Commission on Indigenous Peoples). |
| Zoning Restrictions | Residents may find their homes suddenly located in "Strict Protection Zones" where all human activity is banned. |
| Relocation Issues | The law mandates that if relocation is necessary, it must be done with "just compensation" and "due process," but funding for such measures is often scarce. |
| The "Paper Park" Phenomenon | Areas designated as protected on paper but lacking actual ground enforcement, leading to "land grabbing" by speculators under the guise of being tenured migrants. |
VI. Conclusion of Legal Principles
The Philippine legal system attempts to bridge the gap between "Green Rights" (environment) and "Brown Rights" (land and property). The prevailing rule is that prior rights must be respected. If a title or an ancestral claim existed before the area was declared "protected," the State cannot simply take it away without following the constitutional requirements of due process and just compensation. However, the exercise of those rights is subject to the State’s police power to regulate land use for the greater ecological good.