Separate Opinion 22 G.R. No. 224469 especially since a criminal case, being personal in nature, affects their liberty as the accused. The members of the Court may argue one way or the other, but no length oflegal debate will remove from the fact that this case is still about two men who acted pursuant to precisely the kind of cultural choice and community-based environmental agency that they believe the IPRA contemplated they had the freedom to exercise. The petitioners hang their liberty on the question of whether or not IPRA, vis-a-vis forestry laws, has failed or delivered on its fundamental promise. That the Court cannot categorically either affirm or negate their belief, only casts reasonable doubt not only as to whether or not they are guilty of an offense, but whether or not there was even an offense to speak of. At most, this doubt only further burdens the fate of the petitioners with constitutional questions, the answers to which must await a future, more suitable oppmiunity. At the very least, this doubt must merit their acquittal. Based on these premises, I vote to GRANT the petition. Petitioners DIOSDADO SAMA y HINUPAS and BANDY MASANGLAY y ACEVEDA, as well as their co-accused DEMETRIO MASANGLAY y ACEVEDA, should be ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. CR-05-8066. C@irfii8c:::J '"---_; .., r~ ~-- / ~mii:f-~~~ Deputy Clerk of Court En Banc OCC En Banc,Supreme Court