Dissenting Opinion - 29 - G.R. No. 224469 State, therefore, was deprived of its right to cross-examine the petitioners and test the credibility of their defense. Indeed, the admission of the solitary witness' testimony without personal knowledge violates the fundamental principles of justice and rules of fair play. 78 To me, presentation of such evidence is vital in order to ensure that the dangers posed by the loopholes existing in the law are prevented. Highly probable, if not already rampant, is the scenario where actual, illegal loggers course their criminal~ activities through IPs who, through the present majority opinion, will now be free from any liability whatsoever under the law. Surely, the majority could not have intended on exempting from the provisions of P.D. No. 705 persons other than members of indigenous communities who may very well convince these IPs to do the cutting for them. Neither could the IPRA have intended on authorizing non-IPs to exercise much less benefit from the rights granted therein. As a consequence, therefore, doubts arise as to the applicability of the provisions of the IPRA to the present case and whether the same can even be invoked at all. This notwithstanding, while it may be argued that such dangers can be addressed during trial, assuming the true perpetrators are apprehended, the damage which P.D. No. 705 seeks to prevent would have already been done, for one cannot re-plant the felled trees that took decades to mature. Third, in their Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration filed before the trial court, petitioners sought the court's consideration arguing that Iraya-Mangyans of the area did not altogether disregard the regulatory measures imposed by the State. 79 They averred that even before the passage of the IPRA, resource use permits were applied for and extended to IPs of the area by the DENR. As proof, petitioners presented a copy of the endorsement of the list of CSC holders issued by the DENR-CENRO of Calapan City. In fact, petitioners even stated in their Motion to Quash that the jurisdiction of the DENR over forest products is recognized and respected by the IPs. 80 Since petitioners had already established the practice of coordinating with the government, through the DENR, and complying with permit requirements thereof, I do not see any valid reason why they omitted to do so now. Fourth, in the same Motion to Quash, petitioners cited an incident where the Tagbanua tribe logged numerous trees without a permit in Coron, Palawan, for the repair of handrails at the Kayangan Lake. 81 When the DENR tried to confiscate the logs, the tribe claimed they do not need a permit since the cutting was for the benefit of the community. By the simple allegation of community benefit, the Tagbanuas and all other IPs who log 78 DST Movers Corporation v. People's General Insurance Corporation, 778 Phil. 235, 248-249 (2016). 79 80 81 Records, p. 277. Id. at 170. Id.