Dissenting Opinion - 26 - G.R. No. 224469 constituting 110 IC Cs, while over 60 million other Filipinos constituting the overwhelming majority will have to share the remaining. 71 At present, it is estimated that there are now 14-17 million IPs belonging to 110 communities and more than 5~7 million hectares, about 1/6 of the country have been duly titled in the name of indigenous peoples. 72 Placed under this context, one can only imagine what our forests would be like should 14 million IPs engage in a mere "small-scale" logging within more than 5. 7 million hectares of their ancestral domains under the defense that it will "ultimately redound to the benefit of the community" by virtue of their "customary traditions." In response to this, the majority, together with Justice Caguioa, maintains not only that these fears of ecological degradation are more apparent than real but also that they are, nonetheless, addressed by the safeguards found in the IPRA itself. They assure us of limitations on the IP rights that can be i,iferred from the provisions of the IPRA on the IP's correlative responsibility "to establish and activate indigenous practices or culturally-founded strategies to protect, conserve and develop the natural resources and wildlife sanctuaries in the domain," the concept that "ancestral domains and all resources found ~ therein shall serve as the material bases of their cultural integrity," and that "ancestral domains are private but community property which belongs to all generations. ,m In fact, Justice Caguioa adds that the IPRA only recognizes sustainable traditional resource rights that allows the IPs to "sustainably use ... in accordance with their indigenous knowledge, beliefs, systems and practices" the resources which may be found in the ancestral domains which, in turn, are "private but community property which belongs to all generations and therefore cannot be sold, disposed or destroyed." I, however, beg to disagree. The preservation of our environment, more specifically the trees in our forests, cannot, and should not, merely be i-riferred from the rather general statements found in the provisions of the IPRA. Can it be said for certain that the imposition on IPs a general responsibility to conserve natural resources is enough to safeguard the forest reserves that the P.D. No. 705 seeks to protect? On the contrary, moreover, to leave to the IPs, or any person or commµnity of persons for that matter, the sole prerogative to determine for themselves, in accordance with their indigenous knowledge, beliefs, systems and practices, is not only dangerous but reckless. That one cannot sell or dispose the resources found in one's 71 Cruz v. Secretary ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, supra note 49. Taken from website of the United Nations Development Program, (https://www.undp.org/content/dam/philippines/docs/Governance/fastFacts6%20%20Indigenous%20Peop1 es%20in%20the%20Philippines%20rev%201.5.pdf), and from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples Official Facebook Portal (https://www.facebook.com/NCIPportal/photos/a.207388.8702837501/3 l 14873668738994). 73 See majority opinion, p. 52-53. 72