Separate Opinion 16 G.R. No. 224469 resources must not harm the ecology 'and~ environment pursuant to national and customary laws. The limited rights of "management and use" in Section 7 (b) must be taken to contemplate small-scale utilization of natural resources as distinguished from large-scale. Small-scale utilization of natural resources is expressly allowed in the third paragraph of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution "in recognition of the plight of forest dwellers, gold panners, marginal fishermen and others similarly situated who exploit our natural resources for their daily sustenance and survival." Section 7 (b) also expressly mandates the ICCs/IPs to manage and conserve these resources and ensure environmental and ecological protection within the domains, which duties, by their very nature, necessarily reject utilization in a largescale.38 Absence of the second element: petitioners had "authorlty" to cut the tree under the IPRA It is clear from the foregoing that the IPRA allows ICCs/IPs to use natural resources found in their ancestral domains, albeit in a limited way. 39 Nevertheless, even assuming that ancestral domains are part of "forest lands," "public lands," or "private lands," as contemplated by P.D. 705, Sec. 77 - it is nonetheless my considered view that petitioners still cannot be held criminally liable because the second element of the crime of violation of P.D. 705 is also not present. As demonstrated, petitioners' act of cutting the dita tree was done "with authority" emanating from the IPRA; hence, they cannot be held criminally liable. For a better understanding of the "authority" necessitated by the law, a review of its legislative history is imperative. In 1974, P.D. 389 or the Forestry Reform Code was enacted. Sec. 69 thereof punished the cutting, gathering, and/or~collection of timber or other products from forest land: SECTION 69. Cutting, Gathering, and/or Collection of Timber or Other Products. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period and a fine of five (5) times the minimum single forest charge on such timber and other forest products in addition to the confiscation of the same products, machineries, [equipment,] implements and tools used in the commission of such offense; and the forfeiture of improvements introduced thereon, in favor of the Government, shall be imposed upon any individual, corporation, partnership, or association who shall, without permit from the Director, occupy or use or cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest products from any public forest, proclaimed timberland, municipal or city forest, grazing land, reforestation project, forest 38 39 Separate Opinion of Justice Puno in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, supra note 26 at 233-235. (Italics in the original, emphasis supplied) Again, the parameters of the IPRA are sustainable use "in accordance with their indigenous knowledge, beliefs, systems and practices."