THE Supreme Court has ruled that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) cannot take over a dispute simply because one side claims to be an indigenous group member.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the Supreme Court’s Third Division noted that the parties involved must belong to the same indigenous group for the NCIP to have jurisdiction over the case.
The Supreme Court rejected the petition of spouses Elvin and Jocelyn Sending, who sought to stop the enforcement of a final ejectment ruling against them.
The dispute began when Kristoffer Co Uy filed an unlawful detainer case seeking to evict the Sendings from property registered in his name.
The municipal circuit trial court (MCTC), regional trial court and Court of Appeals all ruled in Co Uy’s favor and ordered the couple to vacate the property.
When the appellate ruling became final and executory, the MCTC moved to enforce it.
It was only at the execution stage that the Sendings invoked Republic Act 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997, claiming they belonged to the Lumad KKK-Alimaong Higaonon Tribe.
They argued that the dispute should instead be resolved under IP customary laws and brought before the NCIP and the Dadantulan Tribal Court.
The high court disagreed.
Under Section 66 of IPRA, the Court said, NCIP jurisdiction over disputes involving the rights of Indigenous peoples applies when all parties belong to the same Indigenous Cultural Community.
If one of the parties does not belong to that same IP group, the dispute falls under the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
Co Uy, it said, was not an IP member, meaning the argument would run counter to basic principles of fair play and due process.
The Court questioned the Sendings’ own claim of IP membership.
The couple failed to present sufficient evidence establishing that they were members of the claimed indigenous community.
The Sendings were consequently ordered to vacate the property within 30 days from receipt of the decision.
In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa underscored the need to clearly define the boundaries between tribal and regular court jurisdiction, noting that respect for IPs’ autonomy and customary laws must go hand in hand with protection of the due-process rights of non-Indigenous parties.
