Dissenting Opinion 11 G.R. No. 224469 lands. " 27 Violation of Section 77 is a malum prohibitum crime. 28 The commission of the prohibited act is the crime itself regardless of the intent of the doer. 29 Unless and until the Legislature amends PD No. 705, or a clear and categorical exemption from PD No. 705 is legislated, the conviction of the petitioners must be sustained. To reiterate, the Court cannot simply expand the implications of the provisions of IPRA to carve out an exception in favor of indigenous people, when such has not been clearly established by the intent of the Legislature. Finally, with all due respect to the erudite disquisition of the ponencia, all is not lost for its pedagogical exhaustiveness that beckons for alternative standards that would give substance to the IP rights to preserve their cultural integrity, ancestral lands and ancestral domains, based on the exceptions to the generality principle of criminal laws. The application of the laws of preferential application, like the Constitution, IPRA, and other relevant laws advanced by the learned and esteemed jurists Senior Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Justice Marvic Leonen, Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, and the ponente herself, may sustain the acquittal of the petitioners. Also, the postulation of Justice Rodil Zalameda that there is lack ofintent to perpetrate the act may be applied in favor of the petitioners. However, I am not convinced yet for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, I vote to DENY the petition and affirm the conviction of the petitioners. Certiifled True Copy ~i~t;,!~~~ Deputy Clerk of Court En Banc OCC En Banc, r: ·~,;.. :"t 27 28 29 The whereas clause of PD No. 705 provides: WHEREAS, proper classification, management and utilization of the lands of the public domain to maximize their productivity to meet the demands of our increasing population is urgently needed; WHEREAS, to achieve the above purpose, it is necessary to reassess the multiple uses of forest lands and resources before allowing any utilizatio,n thereof to optimize the benefits that can be derived therefrom; WHEREAS, it is also imperative to place emphasis not only on the utilization thereof but more so on the protection, rehabilitation and development of forest lands, in order to ensure the continuity of their productive condition; WHEREAS, the present laws and regulations governi11g forest lands are not responsive enough to support re-oriented government programs, projects and efforts on the proper classification and delimitation of the lands of the public domain, and the management, utilization, protection, rehabilitation, and development of forest lands; See Aquino v. People, 611 Phil. 442 (2009). Id., citing People v. Bayona, 61 Phil.I 81, l 85 (l 93.'i ); Pec~ole v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil.488, 500 (191 0); and U.S. v. Go Chico, 14 Phil.128, 132 (J 909); Ramon C. Aquino, Th>" Revised Penal Code, Vol. I, 1987 ed.,pp. 52-54.