Dissenting Opinion - 35 - G.R. No. 224469 everyday lives of IPs such that one cannot survive a day without cutting a tree, then government regulation is all the more necessary to prevent the depletion of these trees that take decades and decades to grow. Regrettably, then, I cannot join the majority's invocation of a "confusing state of affairs" to justify petitioners' acquittal from their otherwise prohibited act. For how can there be any confusion when there was never a time after the passage of P.D. No. 705 where IPs, or anyone for that matter, were exempted from the permit requirement. As chronologically detailed above, both the Legislature and Executive have, time and time again, reiterated this need for DENR authority prior to any tree-cutting activity. Besides, it cannot truthfully be declared that petitioners were, indeed, confused. As previously noted, petitioners already had a practice of applying for resource use permits from the DENR, through its local office, CENRO, in Calapan City. In fact, they even presented a copy of the endorsement of the list of CSC holders issued by the DENR-CENRO of Calapan City. 99 In the end, it must be remembered that our Constitution vests the ownership of natural resources, not in a select few, but in all the Filipino people. 100 The inherent importance of these natural resources to society as a whole is beyond cavil, the same being inseparable to our very existence. To me, exempting petitioners from liability under P.D. No. 705 is virtually tantamount to the surrender of any remaining rights of the People to a chosen sector of society. Certainly, this could not have been the intention of the IPRA, let alone our Constitution. No right must be so great so as to create an unrestricted license to act according to one's will. It cannot be stressed enough, however, that the provisions of P.D. No. 705 do not, in any way, strip IPs of their rights duly enshrined in the law. The end, simply, is to shed light on other equally pressing rights, such as the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health. Now more than ever, at a time when clear-cut lines between seemingly competing rights can no longer be drawn, of utmost importance is the availability of dialogue and representation - dialogue among all concerned sectors of society. For as warned by Oposa, unless the environment is given continued significance, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come - generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. 101 99 Rfcords, p. 170. See Separate Opinion of Justice Panganiban, Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, supra note 49, at 110.§. • '"" · Opo,o v. Factoran, .rnp,a note 69, at 713. {/ 100 ,/Y