Dissenting Opinion 8 G.R. No. 224469 uncivilized tribe of Igorots, he is a densely ignorant and untutored fellow, who lived in the Igorot country, and is not much, if any, higher that are they in the scale of civilization. The beneficent provisions of article 11 of the Penal Code as amended by Act No. 2142 of the Philippine Legislature [Now Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code] are peculiarly applicable to offenders who are shown to be members of these uncivilized tribes, and to other offenders who, as a result of the fact that their lives are cast with such people far away from the centers of civilization, appear to be so lacking in "instruction and education" that they should not be held to so high a degree of responsibility as is demanded of those citizens who have had the advantage of living their lives in contact with the refining influences of civilization. 14 The 1981 case of Macatanda already settled that there is no such thing as uncivilized cultural minority which would Warraht "lenient treatment" from criminal liability: The Maqui case was decided in 1914, when the state of civilization of the Igorots has not advanced as it had in reaching its present state since recent years, when it certainly can no longer be said of any member of a cultural minority in the country that he is uncivilized or semi-uncivilized. 15 Hence, the mere fact that the petitioners belonged to the cultural minority or are lacking access to information should not be used to acquit or completely absolve them from liability. To adopt the "liberal approach" would be to carve out an exemption from penal laws in favor of indigenous people, which could not have been the intention of our government, or of any government for that matter. The principle "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith" must be upheld. The conclusive presumption that everyone knows the law, and that no one can be excused from compliance therefrom, constitutes the very bonds of a lawful and orderly society. There is no inconsistency between the IPRA and the Revised Forestry Code. Statutes must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. 16 Merely because a later enactment may relate to the same subject matter as that of an earlier statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the latter, since the new law may be cumulative or a contin6ation of the old one. 17 As pointed out by Chief Justice Peralta, the DENR- National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Joint AO No. 2008-01 effectively harmonized the provisions of PD No. 705 with the IPRA: As a matter of fact, the DENR, together with the NCIP, had already effectively harmonized these interests found in the provisions of P.D. No. 705 and the IPRA when it issued DENR-NCIP Joint AO No. 2008-01. By virtue of the joint order, the State duly recognized the inherent right of the IPs to self14 15 16 17 Id. at 100-101. Supra note I 0, at 610. Republic v. Yahon, 736 Phil. 397,410 (2014). Valera v. Tuason, Jr., 80 Phil. 823, 827 (l 948), citing Statutory Construction, Crawford, p. 634. f