The Supreme Court has confirmed that Baguio City remains outside the scope of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, as per a recent ruling. The decision came after the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and the heirs of Joan Gorio and Lauro Carante sought a reconsideration of an earlier judgment from July 11, 2023, which stated that Baguio City is not subject to the provisions of IPRA under Section 78 of the law. The court emphasized that Baguio’s land rights are governed by its own charter, not by IPRA.
The controversy began in 1990 when the heirs of Carantes claimed ancestral rights over certain lands in Baguio City, asserting their connection to the Ibaloi indigenous community. These claims were initially processed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and later transferred to the NCIP following the enactment of IPRA in 1997. The NCIP recognized these claims in 2008, asserting that the ancestral rights persisted despite the land being designated as a government reservation since 1907.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) challenged the NCIP’s decision in the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that Baguio City’s status as a townsite reservation exempted it from IPRA. The CA initially sided with the NCIP and the heirs, leading the OSG to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified that while Baguio City is exempt from IPRA, indigenous peoples can still claim ownership of land within the city if they can demonstrate continuous occupation and possession since time immemorial. However, the court found that the heirs of Carantes did not meet this criterion, as they were not currently in possession of the land in question.
The court’s decision underscores the distinction between ancestral rights under IPRA and native title claims based on continuous possession. It also reaffirmed that claims for native title must be pursued through standard land titling processes rather than through IPRA.