Separate Concurring Opinion 6 G.R. No. 224469 together, these provisions reveal a legislative intent to authorize IPs to use the resources within their ancestral domain, in line with the constitutional provision allowing small-scale utilization of natural resources. 20 Worthy to note that aside from the IPRA, the State has enacted other statutes permitting IPs to utilize natural resources, including timber, within their domains for their domestic needs and subsistence. 21 Of particular significance is the 2018 Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (ENIPAS), 22 which prohibits the "cutting, removing, or collecting [of] timber within the protected area x x x without the necessary pennit, authorization, certification of planted trees or exemption." 23 In recognition of IPs' rights,24 an exception is added to the permit requirement, to wit: "when such acts are done in accordance with the duly recognized practices of the IPs/ICCs for subsistence purposes. " 25 While the application of ENIPAS does not fully square with this case, it, however, provides statutory semblance showing the recognition of IPs' rights in a piece of environmental legislation. In this relation, it may not be amiss to highlight that the ENIP AS constitutes a stricter environmental regulation than what is applicable in areas not protected under this statute (as in this case); nevertheless, by the language of the law itself, the ENIPAS still recognizes the foregoing practices of IPs/ICCs as an exception to the prohibition of "cutting, removing, or collecting [of] timber within the protected area x x x without the necessary permit, authorization, certification of planted trees or exemption." When taken against the entire framework of IP rights protection, I submit that there is ample legal basis to argue that the second element of the offense under Section 77 (i.e., "that the said act is done without any authority") equally recognizes, as an exception, the legitimate exercise ofIPs' rights pursuant to their own cultural and traditional beliefs. 2.0 21 22 23 24 25 See paragraph 3, Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. For one, the law establishing the government of Benguet has allowed IPs there to use timber and firewood for domestic purposes, particularly for cooking food, warming their houses, constructing their houses, or fencing plots of cultivating grounds. (See Section 20 of the Establishment of a Civil Government for Benguet, Act No. 49, November 23, 1900.) In 200 I, the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park (NSMNP) Act was enacted mandating the non-restriction of the f Ps' use of the resources in the NSMNP for their "domestic needs or for their subsistence" and disallowance of the use of timber only if for livelihood purposes. See Section 19, RA 9125, entitled, AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE NORTHERN SlERRA MADRE MOUNTAIN RANGE WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF ISABELA AS A PROTECTED AREA AND ITS PERIPHERAL AREAS AS BUFFER ZONES, PROVIDING FOR ITS MANAGEMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. RA 11038, June 22, 2018, amending RA 7586. See Section 20 of the ENIPAS, as amended. Section 29 of the ENIPAS reads: SEC. 29. Construction and Interpretation. - The provisions of this Act shall be construed liberally in favor of the protection and rehabilitation of the protected area and the conservation and restoration of its biological diversity, xx x Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as a x x x derogation of ancestral domain rights under the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997." Section 20 (c) of the ENIPAS reads thus: "(c) Cutting, gathering, removing or collecting timber within the protected area including private lands therein, without the necessary permit, authorization, certification of planted trees or exemption such as for culling exotic species; except, however, when such acts are done in accordance with the duly recognized practices of the IPs/ICCs for subsistence purposes." (Emphases and underscoring supplied)