This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Considering the general rule that the jurisdiction of the NCIP under Section 66 of the IPRA covers only disputes and claims between and among members of the same ICCs/IPs involving their rights under the IPRA, as well as the basic administrative law principle that an administrative rule or regulation must conform, not contradict the provisions of the enabling law,[22] the Court declares Rule IX, Section 1 of the IPRA-IRR,[23] Rule III, Section 5[24] and Rule IV, Sections 13 and 14 of the NCIP Rules[25] as null and void insofar as they expand the jurisdiction of the NCIP under Section 66 of the IPRA to include such disputes where the parties do not belong to the same ICC/IP. As the Court held in Paduran v. DARAB,[26] "[J]urisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or the law and rules of procedure yield to substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law.[27] Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies; rules of procedure cannot.[28] In the abovesaid exceptional cases where one of the parties is a non-ICC/IP or does not belong to the same ICC/IP, however, Rule IV, Section 14 of the NCIP Rules validly dispenses with the requirement of certification issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the failed attempt to settle the dispute according to the customary laws of the concerned ICC/IP. | |||||