Dissenting Opinion - 16 - G.R. No. 224469 This, however, does not leave the Court without a remedy. On the basis of Article 542 of the RPC, We held in Corpuz that the proper course of action is not to suspend the execution of the sentence but to submit, instead, to the Chief Executive the reasons why the Court considers the said penalty to be non-commensurate with the act committed. In the past, We even went as far as imposing the death penalty without impeding its imposition on the ground of "cruelty." In the same vein, should the Court, in this case, unanimously find that the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon an IP for cutting a tree be excessive or harsh, the Court may very well recommend the matter to the Chief Executive or even Congress for amendment or modification. Suffice it to say, though, that the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments applies not so much to fine and imprisonment, but to punishments which public sentiment has regarded as cruel or obsolete, for instance, those inflicted at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, disemboweling, and the like. 43 But even if We consider such penalty as cruel punishment, imposing a different one on the ground of invalidity amounts to a collateral attack on the subject law that must be thwarted for being violative of due process. This notwithstanding, Justice Caguioa presumes that the lands enumerated in Section 77 of P.D. No. 705 do not include ancestral domains and, as such, petitioners may not be found guilty of violating the same. According to him, ancestral domains are distinct from public or private lands, and any cutting of timber or forest product therein was not contemplated by Section 77. I, however, respectfully disagree. On the contrary, lands possessed by IPs undoubtedly fall within the statute's definition of private lands. Section 77 penalizes the unauthorized removal of timber or other forest products from any forest land, 44 or timber from alienable and disposable public lands, 45 or from private lands. 46 But as can be drawn from the definition of 42 ART. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation. In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would" result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. (Emphasis ours) 43 Corpuz v. People, supra note 40, at 419. 44 Section 3(d) of P.D. No. 705 states that forest lands include the public forest, the permanent forest or forest reserves, and forest reservations. 45 Section 3 (c) of P.D. No. 705 provides that alienable and disposable lands refer to those lands of the public domain which have been the subject of the present system of classification and declared as not nooded fo, fornst pmposes. ~