Separate Concurring Opinion
6
G.R. No. 224469
together, these provisions reveal a legislative intent to authorize IPs to use
the resources within their ancestral domain, in line with the constitutional
provision allowing small-scale utilization of natural resources. 20
Worthy to note that aside from the IPRA, the State has enacted other
statutes permitting IPs to utilize natural resources, including timber, within
their domains for their domestic needs and subsistence. 21 Of particular
significance is the 2018 Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas
System Act (ENIPAS), 22 which prohibits the "cutting, removing, or collecting
[of] timber within the protected area x x x without the necessary pennit,
authorization, certification of planted trees or exemption." 23 In recognition
of IPs' rights,24 an exception is added to the permit requirement, to wit:
"when such acts are done in accordance with the duly recognized practices of
the IPs/ICCs for subsistence purposes. " 25 While the application of ENIPAS
does not fully square with this case, it, however, provides statutory semblance
showing the recognition of IPs' rights in a piece of environmental
legislation. In this relation, it may not be amiss to highlight that the ENIP AS
constitutes a stricter environmental regulation than what is applicable in areas
not protected under this statute (as in this case); nevertheless, by the language
of the law itself, the ENIPAS still recognizes the foregoing practices of
IPs/ICCs as an exception to the prohibition of "cutting, removing, or
collecting [of] timber within the protected area x x x without the necessary
permit, authorization, certification of planted trees or exemption."
When taken against the entire framework of IP rights protection, I
submit that there is ample legal basis to argue that the second element of the
offense under Section 77 (i.e., "that the said act is done without any
authority") equally recognizes, as an exception, the legitimate exercise ofIPs'
rights pursuant to their own cultural and traditional beliefs.
2.0
21
22
23
24
25
See paragraph 3, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
For one, the law establishing the government of Benguet has allowed IPs there to use timber and
firewood for domestic purposes, particularly for cooking food, warming their houses, constructing their
houses, or fencing plots of cultivating grounds. (See Section 20 of the Establishment of a Civil
Government for Benguet, Act No. 49, November 23, 1900.) In 200 I, the Northern Sierra Madre Natural
Park (NSMNP) Act was enacted mandating the non-restriction of the f Ps' use of the resources in the
NSMNP for their "domestic needs or for their subsistence" and disallowance of the use of timber only
if for livelihood purposes. See Section 19, RA 9125, entitled, AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE NORTHERN
SlERRA MADRE MOUNTAIN RANGE WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF ISABELA AS A PROTECTED AREA AND ITS
PERIPHERAL AREAS AS BUFFER ZONES, PROVIDING FOR ITS MANAGEMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
RA 11038, June 22, 2018, amending RA 7586.
See Section 20 of the ENIPAS, as amended.
Section 29 of the ENIPAS reads:
SEC. 29. Construction and Interpretation. - The provisions of this Act shall be
construed liberally in favor of the protection and rehabilitation of the protected area and
the conservation and restoration of its biological diversity, xx x Provided, That nothing in
this Act shall be construed as a x x x derogation of ancestral domain rights under the
Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997."
Section 20 (c) of the ENIPAS reads thus:
"(c) Cutting, gathering, removing or collecting timber within the protected area
including private lands therein, without the necessary permit, authorization, certification
of planted trees or exemption such as for culling exotic species; except, however, when
such acts are done in accordance with the duly recognized practices of the IPs/ICCs
for subsistence purposes." (Emphases and underscoring supplied)