10/12/2019 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Since the regular courts, not the NCIP, have jurisdiction over national laws, then the NCIP's jurisdiction is limited to punishment under customary laws. The NCIP's power to impose penalties under customary laws presents two important issues: first, whether it is legally possible to punish non-ICCs/IPs with penalties under customary laws; and second, whether a member of a particular ICC/IP could be punished in accordance with the customary laws of another ICC/IP. Laws that provide for fines, forfeitures, or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden on the people, such as tax and revenue measures, must be published. Most customary laws are not written, much less published. Hence, it is highly unlikely that the NCIP or even the regular courts have the power to penalize non-ICCs/IPs with these penalties under customary laws. A contrary ruling would be constitutionally infirm for lack of due process. Similarly, an ICC/IP cannot be punished under the customary law of another. Otherwise, the former would be forced to observe a non binding customary law. Therefore, while the NCIP has jurisdiction over violations of ICC/IP rights, its jurisdiction is limited to those committed by and against members of the same ICC/IP. This view does not detract from the IPRA's policy to "protect the rights of ICCs/IPs." ICCs/IPs, whose rights are violated by non-ICCs/IPs or by members of a different ICC/IP, can still file criminal charges before the regular courts. In this situation, the NCIP's role is not to adjudicate but to provide ICCs/IPs with "legal assistance in litigation involving community interest."[60] There is also no merit in petitioners' argument that the Court's interpretation of the NCIP's jurisdiction under Section 66 of the IPRA runs counter to its purpose to protect the rights, customs, customary laws and cultural integrity of the ICCs/IPs. To stress, even as Section 66 grants jurisdiction to the NCIP over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs, it is required that the opposing parties are both ICCs/IPs who have exhausted all their remedies under their customs and customary law before bringing their claim and dispute to the NCIP.[61] And, in some instances that the regular courts may exercise jurisdiction over cases involving rights of ICCs/IPs, the governing law for such disputes necessarily include the IPRA and the rights the law bestows on ICCs/IPs. [62] It also bears emphasis that the right of ICCs/IPs to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanism under Section 15[63] of the IPRA pertains only to those customary laws and practices elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63044 19/32