Dissenting Opinion 9 G.R. No. 224469 governance as well as their contribution to the conservation of the country's environment and natural resources, ensuring equitable sharing benefits thereof Evidently, a reasonable balance between IP rights under the IPRA and protection of forest resources under P.D. No. 705 is already in place. Pursuant to the joint order above, the State expressly recognizes and adheres to the Sustainable Traditional and Indigenous Forest Resources Management Systems and Practices (STIFRMSP) of IPs as well as their Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSP) under their customary laws. Said order mandates all concerned stakeholders consisting of the IPs, the DENR, NCIP, Local Government Units (LGU) to come into an agreement which shall explicitly employ these customary IP practices consistent with their own traditions and cultures to govern their resource utilization within subject forest areas. It is after a rigorous and comprehensive process of consultation and dialogue between and among the parties that tne D'ENR shall issue a forest resource utilization permit upon registration of their STIFRMSP as well as the Joint Implementing Rules and Regulations aimed not only at institutionalizing indigenous and traditionally managed forest practices but, at the same time, utilizing said practices for the protection of the natural resources found in managed forest lands. 18 Ultimately, the IPs are not being deprived of their rights under the IPRA over the ancestral domains and the natural resources. Their preferential right over the natural resources found within their ancestral domains is neither taken away from them nor trampled upon by the government. What is merely required is that they secure documentation or permit, through their leaders or representatives, and with the guidance and cooperation of the NCIP and the DENR, before executing their logging activities. This is to ensure that the government may keep track of the areas they are allowed to log, that the purpose of their logging is within the bounds of IPRA, and, ultimately, to preserve the Philippine forestry. This is the most prudent thing that the State must do as parens patriae not only for this generation but for the future Filipino generations to come. One must not lose sight of the danger that this precedent might set for persons, who, in the future, may find themselves under the same or similar factual circumstances. A single instance of cutting a dita tree, if not sanctioned by the government, when done simultaneously on every single day of the year, by every indigenous person living across the Philippine islands, could cause tremendous impact on our enviromnent. The present and the future generations will ultimately be the victims of the deleterious impact of sanctioning logging without permit: The Court can well take judicial notice of the deplorable problem of deforestation in this country, considering that the deleterious effects of this problem are now imperiling our lives and properties, more specifically, by causing rampaging floods in the lowlands. While it is true that the rights of an accused must be favored in the interpretation of penal provisions of law, it is equally true that when the general welfare and interest of the people are interwoven in the prosecution of a crime, the Court must arrive at a solution only after a fair and just balancing of interests. 19 (Emphasis supplied.) 18 19 Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, pp. 12-14. Lalican v. Hon. Vergara, 342 Phil 485,498 (1997).