Decolonial Critique of the Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia)
The Regalian Doctrine, which establishes that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, has been a cornerstone of Philippine constitutional and land laws. However, its colonial roots and implications for indigenous peoples and marginalized communities have attracted significant decolonial critique. This critique can be framed within the broader context of postcolonial theory, which challenges the continuity of colonial power structures in post-independence societies.
Historical Context and Colonial Legacy
The Regalian Doctrine originates from Spanish colonization and was codified through the Leyes de Indias and other colonial legal systems. The Spanish Crown claimed ownership of all lands, disregarding indigenous land rights and systems of communal ownership. This principle was later adopted and perpetuated by American colonial authorities and the succeeding Philippine Republics. The continuity of the Regalian Doctrine in the 1987 Constitution reflects a persistence of colonial legal frameworks that marginalize indigenous peoples.
Decolonial scholars argue that the doctrine perpetuates “coloniality” — a system where colonial power relations endure even after the formal end of colonization. It institutionalizes a state-centric view of land ownership that displaces indigenous and local epistemologies of land as a communal resource.
Dispossession of Indigenous Peoples
The Regalian Doctrine has legitimized the dispossession of indigenous communities, converting ancestral lands into “public domain” lands that are subject to state control. Despite mechanisms like the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, the Regalian Doctrine remains foundational, creating tensions between state law and indigenous customary law.
Decolonial perspectives highlight the doctrine’s role in the extraction of resources from indigenous territories, linking it to global systems of economic exploitation. This critique calls for a shift to a legal framework that recognizes the precolonial sovereignty of indigenous peoples over their lands.
The Anthropocentric and Capitalist Paradigm
By treating land as a state-owned commodity, the Regalian Doctrine aligns with capitalist and extractivist paradigms that prioritize economic development over ecological and social justice. This approach often leads to large-scale deforestation, mining, and other forms of environmental degradation, disproportionately affecting indigenous and rural communities.
A decolonial critique argues for a relational understanding of land, emphasizing stewardship, reciprocity, and the intrinsic value of ecosystems. This aligns with indigenous worldviews that regard land as sacred and interconnected with community and identity.
Implications for Sovereignty and Social Justice
The doctrine reinforces the state’s monopoly over land distribution and access, often benefitting political elites and private corporations at the expense of marginalized groups. Decolonial thinkers advocate for the democratization of land governance and the dismantling of legal frameworks that perpetuate inequality.
By centering indigenous epistemologies and practices, a decolonial approach seeks to transform the legal order to reflect pluralistic and equitable conceptions of land ownership and governance.
Proposed Alternatives
Decolonial critiques propose several pathways to reform:
- Recognition of Indigenous Sovereignty: Amending the Constitution to explicitly recognize ancestral domain and indigenous land rights, removing the primacy of the Regalian Doctrine.
- Pluralistic Legal Systems: Developing frameworks that integrate indigenous legal traditions and customary land governance systems.
- Ecological Justice: Promoting land policies rooted in sustainability, stewardship, and the recognition of ecosystems’ rights.
