Advocate's Overview: Regalian Doctrine

4 MIN READ

By ARTHUR L. ALLAD-IW

One of the hottest issues in relation to land and resources in our country is the Regalian Doctrine. This is frequently asked when land and resources are at stake. I take this opportunity to discuss the issue hoping that it could clarify State policies on land and resources.

Regalian Doctrine is a feudal concept introduced by the Spanish colonizers. As a feudal State ruled by a King and an evolving powerful State during the 16th century, Spain tried to colonize other territories. By virtue of this colonization – under the guise of discovery – Spain declared the colonized territories as part of its territory. That was what happened when the Spaniards “discovered” the Philippines in 1521. Upon “discovery”, all lands belonged to the King of Spain. Regal means King. Hence the Regalian Doctrine.

In the latter part of the 19th century, Spain was losing its might. Its resources were then drained as it had focused in containing the War of Independence by its colonized territories including, the Philippines. Choosing between profiting or losing its territories, Spain sold the Philippines for US$20 million to the Americans before the end of the 19th century. That sale was known in history as the Treaty of Paris, which then handed the Philippines to the Americans.

The Regalian Doctrine was adopted by the Americans. As the new colonizer, the American colonial State then owned the land and resources in the Philippines. Although the leader of their State was not a King, the land and resources in the Philippines were then put under the disposal of the American State. The doctrine was incorporated in the the American Philippine Bill of 1902 and in their 1935 Constitution, which also provided for a transition of the Philippines from a colony to an “independent State.”

The doctrine was refined by the Americans. It mandated people of the Philippines, including indigenous peoples, to title their lands under the American Torrens title. The said title is the proof of ownership by an individual of the land. The real intention of the Americans was to segregate individually owned land. Those that were not titled were declared as public land owned by the State. In a public land, only the American State could dispose of the land. Most Filipinos, particularly indigenous peoples, lost their lands as they were not used to that foreign system of titling lands. On the other hand, lands rights were granted by the American State to mineral prospectors. These prospectors established prior rights over mineral lands as early as 1902. That was the case of the old mines in Benguet.

Post colonial administrations implemented the 1935 Constitution tailored by the Americans for their interests on land and resources. Even if they were not in the country, they already trained their puppet administrators. The 1973 Constitution also contained the Regalian Doctrine reiterating that land and resources are owned by the state.

People won the February 1986 revolution as they kicked out the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos from the presidency. Although the 1987 Constitution was adopted, it maintained the Regalian Doctrine provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902, and the 1935 and 1973 constitutions. The doctrine is contained in Section 2, Art XII which states that: “All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.”

The following Section 3 of the same Article further classified the public domain into forest or timber, mineral, national park and agricultural. Forest or timbers, national parks and reservations, and mineral lands are owned by the state and it cannot be alienated or owned privately.

To reiterate and implement the Regalian Doctrine, the State adopted the Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942) to govern mineral lands, the National Integrated Protected Area System Act of 1992 to govern national parks and reservations, and maintained PD 705 of Marcos to govern forest and timber lands. Since the owner of the said public domains (forest or timber, mineral and national parks) is the State under the Regalian Doctrine, it is only the State that can dispose of these. That is why the State can dispose through lease or joint venture activities mineral lands to mining corporations and timber lands to logging companies. While national parks under the NIPAS is not subject for any economic activity, the State can allow economic activity if proponents had acquired prior property rights earlier than the passage of the NIPAS.

So almost everything are owned by the State under the Regalian Doctrine. The doctrine is contained in the fundamental law and various laws as we enumerated above. That is why you cannot take any forest products without permit from the concerned government agency or agencies. Nor can you mine minerals in your own land without the consent of the owner – the state. Or else you can be convicted based on the penal provisions of the laws above.

I hope I have clarified the anti-people policies of the state in relation with land and resources.

But how about indigenous peoples who nurtured their ancestral lands and domains since time immemorial? Do they owned the resources, like minerals and trees, located in their ancestral lands and domain? We will tackle that next issue. #