The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act does not compel courts of law to desist from taking cognizance of criminal cases involving indigenous peoples. It expresses no correlative rights and duties in support of petitioner's cause. Thus, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued.
A crime is "an offense against society."[64] It "is a breach of the security and peace of the people at large[.]"[65]
A criminal action, where "the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law,"[66] is thus pursued "to maintain social order."[67] It "punish[es] the offender in order to deter him [or her] and others from committing the same or similar offense, . . . isolate[s] him [or her] from society, reform[s] and rehabilitate[s] him [or her]."[68] One who commits a crime commits an offense against all the citizens of the state penalizing a given act or omission:[69] "a criminal offense is an outrage to the very sovereignty of the State[.]"[70]Accordingly, a criminal action is prosecuted in the name of the "People" as plaintiff. Likewise, a representative of the State, the public prosecutor, "direct[s] and control[s] the prosecution of [an] offense."[71] As such, a public prosecutor is:
[T]he representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he [or she] is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.[72]The capacity to prosecute and punish crimes is an attribute of the State's police power.[73] It inheres in "the sovereign power instinctively charged by the common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the interests of the community, the individual and social rights and the liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his rights."[74]
The basic precepts underlying crimes and criminal actions make it improper for the State to yield "disputes" involving criminal offenses to indigenous peoples' customary laws and practices.
It was never the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act's intent to facilitate such miscarriage of justice. Its view of self-governance and empowerment is not myopic, but is one that balances. Preservation is pursued in the context of national unity and is impelled by harmony with the national legal system. Customary laws cannot work to undermine penal statutes designed to address offenses that are an affront to sovereignty.
Viewed through the lens of the requisites for issuing a writ of mandamus, there is no right or duty to even speak of here. Nowhere in the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act does it state that courts of law are to abandon jurisdiction over criminal proceedings in favor of mechanisms applying customary laws.
Petitioner derives no right from the Dadantulan Tribal Court to be spared from criminal liability. The Regional Trial Court is under no obligation to defer to the exculpatory pronouncements made by the Dadantulan Tribal Court. Instead, it must proceed to rule on petitioner's alleged liability with all prudence and erudition.
8 comments:
The decision of the Supreme Court is a disappointment. The efforts of our ancestors who sacrificed their lives to fight the colonizers were just wasted in this sense. With their decision, the spirit and true intent of RA 8371 was not satisfied.
Our Tribal Ancestors also had their justice system. If we try to realize how their justice system works, they are able to give perfect judgment, because they employ the use of spiritual intervention like mediumship to determine the true culprit.
Just like this case, after the material investigation, the finality of the decision was based on spiritual intervention thru a ritual. How come supreme court cant comprehend the section 13, 15, and 65 of RA. 8371 in reference to the belief, cultures, traditions and institutions of tribal peoples since time immemorial.
We can only curse those who did not give us an ear, and did not recognize and respect our Dadantulan Tribal Court.
The Decision of the Supreme Court for G.R. No. 221139 is unconstitutional because it is contrary to Article VIII section 14 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Under Article VIII, Section 14
“No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.”
In the Decision, there was no provision of law that was provided to negate the rights of the Indigenous Peoples under section 13, section 15, section 65 and section 66 of RA 8371, Rule IV Part 1 Section 1(b) and Rule IX Section 2 of the IRR of RA 8371, UN-ILO Convention 169 Article 10. In fact only the Section 15 and Section 65 were being tackled, and the rest were not discussed.
On page 15 of the Decision, where Section 15 was discussed, it was intentionally misinterpreted to deprived us of our rights.
The Supreme Court in its Decision quoted and supplied emphasis on the section 15 of RA 8371
“SECTION 15. Justice System, Conflict Resolution Institutions, and Peace Building Processes. — The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights. (Emphasis supplied)”
Then the next paragraph is the Court’s interpretation, which states,
“Section 15 limits indigenous peoples' "right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices[.]" It explicitly states that this right is applicable only "within their respective communities" and only for as long as it is "compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights” [Emphasis supplied]
What makes it a wrong interpretation?
The statement “AS MAY BE COMPATIBLE” is different from the statement “ONLY FOR AS LONG AS IT IS COMPATIBLE”. The word “MAY” DOES NOT IMPOSE LEGAL OBLIGATION unlike the word MUST. The Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook (Section 3) states, "Use ‘must’ instead of ‘shall’ to impose a legal obligation on your reader."
Giving emphasis to the statement “with internationally recognized human rights”
(from section 15, RA 8371), the UN ILO Convention 169, Article 10 should have been discussed, as it is an internationally recognized human rights that has been applied to the Tribal Peoples of Guatemala involving criminal cases (Please see attached Annex F)
ARTICLE 10
"Preference shall be given to methods of punishment other than confinement in prison"
Do Tribal peoples are entitled with rights in terms of interpreting RA 8371?
The answer is Yes, per Rule IX section 2(a) of the IRR of RA 8371, which states
Section 2. Rules of Interpretation. In the interpretation of the provisions of the Act and these rules, the following shall apply:
a) All doubts in the interpretation of the provisions of the Act, including its these rules, or any ambiguity in their application shall be resolved in favor of the ICCs/IPs.
In G.R. 135385, Isagani Cruz et al vs. Secretary of DENR et al, 347 SCRA page 180, states,
“It was the chieftain’s duty to rule and govern his subjects and promote their welfare and interests. A chieftain had wide powers for he exercised all the functions of the government. He was the executive, legislator and judge and was the supreme commander in time of war.
Laws were either customary or written. Customary laws were handed down orally from generation to generation and constituted the bulk of laws of the barangay. They were preserved in songs and chants and in the memory of the elder persons in the community.5 The written laws were those that the chieftain and his elders promulgated from time to time as the necessity arose.
The oldest known written body of laws was the Maragtas Code by Datu Sumakwel at about 1250A.D. Other old codes are the Muslim Code of Luwaran and the Principal Code of Sulu.7 .Whether Customary or written, the laws dealt with various subjects, such as inheritance, divorce, usury, loans, partnership, crime and punishment, property rights, family relations and adoption8 ”[Emphasis supplied]
Invoking the rights of Indigenous Peoples to use our justice institution Dadantulan (Tribal Court) pursuant to section 13, 15, and 65 of RA 8371 and other international treaties is not a way of avoiding prosecution from the regular court, because it is undeniable that the customary law is very clear it deals with various subjects including crime and punishment since time immemorial.
In the United States of America, the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 is a law, signed into effect by President Obama, that expands the punitive abilities of tribal courts across the nation. The law allows tribal courts operating in Indian country to increase jail sentences handed down in criminal cases.
The Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) / Indigenous Peoples (IPs) have no intention to be above the regular court, Supreme Court etc., ours is only to uphold the sanctity of customary laws as embodied in the Constitution, RA 8371, and in the international treaties.
A good reading of the G.R. No. 135385, Isagani Cruz et al vs. Secretary of DENR et al, is an enlightenment of this case.
As emphasized in the opinion of Justice Puno,
“Disputes involving ICCs/IPs are to be resolved under customary laws and practices. When still unresolved, the matter may be brought to the NCIP, which is granted quasi-judicial powers. The NCIP's decisions may be appealed to the Court of Appeals by a petition for review.”
But, the Supreme Court in its Decision for G.R. No. 221139 ruled that,
“Petitioner derives no right from Dadantulan Tribal Court to be spared from criminal liability. The Regional Trial Court is under no obligation to defer to the exculpatory pronouncements made by the Dadantulan Tribal Court. Instead, it must proceed to rule on petitioner's alleged liability with all prudence and erudition.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Respondents are directed to proceed with dispatch in the resolution of Criminal Case No. CBU-81130”
Contrary to the Supreme Court’s pronouncement, the R.A. 8371 and its implementing rules and regulations, particularly the subject provisions, provide the full blanket right of the Indigenous Peoples to use their justice institution.
A re-examination of the cited provisions becomes essential. The pertinent provisions are cited anew.
R.A. 8371,
Section 15. Justice System, Conflict Resolution Institutions, and Peace Building Processes. — “The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights.” [Emphasis supplied]
Section 65. Primacy of Customary Laws and Practices.
“When disputes involve ICCs/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute.”
OTHER LAWS THAT WERE NOT DISCUSSED BY THE SUPREME COURT
IRR, RA 8371, RULE IV: RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNANCE AND EMPOWERMENT
Part 1, section 1
a) The socio-political structures, systems and institutions of ICCs/IPs are strengthened;
b) The indigenous structures, systems, and institutions are not supplanted by other forms of nonindigenous governance; and/ or
c) Mechanisms that allow the interfacing of indigenous systems of governance with the national systems are established.
Paragraph (b) of the above provision should not be treated lightly, as it emphasizes that “indigenous structures, systems, and institutions ARE NOT SUPPLANTED by other forms of NON-INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE.” The Decision of the Supreme Court for G.R. No. 221139 supplanted our sacred institution, the Tribal Court.
The Tribal Court is just one of our institutions that is not to be supplanted by other forms of non-indigenous governance.
The term INTERFACING in paragraph (c) is to co-exist with harmony. It is just like a glass of oil and water that do not mix with each other. This is the same principle that the 1987 Philippine Constitution, RA 8371 and other international laws and treaties that aims for preservation not integration of the Indigenous Peoples to the mainstream.
Under the Supreme Court Circular No. 14-93 dated July 15, 1993 provides
“xxx where the dispute involves members of the same indigenous cultural community, which shall be settled in accordance with the customs and traditions of that particular cultural community xxx
The purpose of this complaint is to call the attention of the Supreme Court for the violations committed against the Tribal Government. It is good to remember that long before the establishment of the Supreme Court, the Tribal Government has been in existence along with its institutions among others. We all know our Tribal hero
Datu Pulaku widely known as Lapu Lapu, who fought against the colonizers. His people who died in the fight to defend this nation were our ancestors. It is sad to note the Decision of the Supreme Court is a modern way of colonization that deprived us of our inherent right to self-governance per section 13 of RA 8371, and our Justice System institution per section 15, RA 8371, and deprived us of our internationally recognized human rights per Article 5, 34, 37 and 38 of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous People (UNDRIP) of 2007 which states,
Article 5
“Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions,xxx.” [Emphasis supplied]
Article 34
Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards. [Emphasis supplied]
Article 37
“Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.” [Emphasis supplied]
Article 38
“States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, shall take the appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to achieve the ends of this Declaration.”
What are these treaties?
a.) International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) was signed and ratified by the Philippine Government on December 19, 1966 and on June 7, 1974 respectively.
b.) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was signed and ratified by the Philippine Government on December 19, 1966 and on October 23, 1986 respectively.
c.) International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169, an Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989.
d.) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) adopted September 13, 2007.
Therefore the Decision of Supreme Court of the Petition for Mandamus docketed as
G.R. No. 221139 is unconstitutional, null and void.
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE CASE GR No. 221139 is A BIG HISTORICAL ERROR. A VERY WRONG INTERPRETATION FOR SECTION 15 OF RA 8371. THE WRITER SHOULD KNOW THAT THE STATEMENT " AS MAY BE COMPATIBLE" IN THE SECTION 15, HAS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION. THAT "MAY BE" THING IS A BASIC ENGLISH 101, YOU SUPREME COURT IS SO POOR IN ENGLISH...HAHAHAHAHHAHA...
The word “MAY” DOES NOT IMPOSE LEGAL OBLIGATION unlike the word MUST. The Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook (Section 3) states, "Use ‘must’ instead of ‘shall’ to impose a legal obligation on your reader."
take a look at “SECTION 15, RA 8371.
Justice System, Conflict Resolution Institutions, and Peace Building Processes. — The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities and as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights. (Emphasis supplied)”
Post a Comment