04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [253] Fernandez, supra, at 385, 391. SEPARATE OPINION VITUG, J.: An issue of grave national interest indeed deserves a proper place in any forum and, when it shows itself in a given judicial controversy, the rules of procedure, like locus standi, the propriety of the specific remedy invoked, or the principle of hierarchy of courts, that may ordinarily be raised by partylitigants, should not be so perceived as good and inevitable justifications for advocating timidity, let alone isolationism, by the Court. A cardinal requirement, to which I agree, is that one who invokes the Court's adjudication must have a personal and substantial interest in the dispute;[1] indeed, the developing trend would require a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated in order to ensure that one is the proper and appropriate party to invoke judicial power.[2] The rule requires a party to aptly show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision so as to warrant his invocation of the Court's jurisdiction and to render legally feasible the exercise of the Court's remedial powers in his behalf. If it were otherwise, the exercise of that power can easily become too unwieldy by its sheer magnitude and scope to a point that may, in no small measure, adversely affect its intended essentiality, stability and consequentiality. Nevertheless, where a most compelling reason exits, such as when the matter is of transcendental importance and paramount interest to the nation,[3] the Court must take the liberal approach that recognizes the legal standing of nontraditional plaintiffs, such as citizens and taxpayers, to raise constitutional issues that affect them.[4] This Court thus did so in a case[5] that involves the conservation of our forests for ecological needs. Until and exact balance is struck, the Court must accept an eclectic notion that can free itself from the bondage of legal nicety and hold trenchant technicalities subordinate to what may be considered to be of overriding concern. The petition seeks a declaration by the Court of unconstitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, a law that obviously is yet incapable of exact equation in its significance to the nation and its people now and in the generations yet to come. Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise also known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 ("IPRA"), enacted into law in 1997 and made effective on 22 November 1997, is apparently intended to be a legislative response to the 1987 Constitution which recognizes the rights of indigenous cultural communities "within the framework of national unity and development"[6] and commands the State, "subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/36882 72/148