Dissenting Opinion - 23 - G.R. No. 224469 ECOZONES. As such, he shall provide overall supervision over and general direction to the development and operations of these ECOZONES. He shall determine the structure and the staffing pattern and persdnnel complement of the PEZA and establish regional offices, when necessary, subject to the approval of the PEZABoard. In addition, he shall have the following specific powers and responsibilities: XXX XXX XXX (i) To require owners of houses, buildings or other structures constructed without the necessary permit whether constructed on public or private lands, to remove or demolish such houses, buildings, structures within sixty (60) days after notice and upon failure of such owner to remove or demolish such house, building or structure within said period, the director general or his authorized representative may summarily cause its removal or demolition at the expense of the owner, any existing law, decree, executive order and other issuances or part thereof to the contrary notwithstanding; By specific provision of law, it is PEZA, through its building officials, which has authority to issue building permits for the construction of structures within the areas owned or administered by it, whether on public or private lands. 64 In the end, We held that PEZA acted well within its functions when it demanded the demolition of the structures which respondents had put up without first securing building and fencing permits therefrom. Like petitioners in this case, the respondents in PEZA failed to procure the permits that were required of them by law to obtain prior to their acts committed on their ancestral lands. But unlike the majority opinion in this case, We upheld in PEZA the enactments requiring prior authority and ruled that respondents should have first obtained the necessary permits. To me, PEZA is a proper application and harmonization of existing laws. It notably stands as a testament to the possibility of a healthy balance between the rights of IPs to their ancestral lands, on one end, and the duty of the State to protect said lands, on the other end. It cannot be denied, therefore, that Philippine law and jurisprudence alike merely grant indigenous cultural communities a general right to preserve their cultural integrity, ancestral domains, and ancestral lands which is neither absolute nor limitless. Applicable constitutional provisions are ordinarily read in light of, and subject to, the broader framework of the national development. In particular, Section 22, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides that "the State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development." Similarly, Section 5, Article XII provides that "the State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development 64 Id. at 550-554. (Emphases ours) ~