Datu Malingin (Lemuel Talingting y Simborio), Tribal Chieftain, Higaonon-Sugbuanon Tribe Vs. PO3 Arvin R.... G.R. No. 240056. October 12, 2020
First, petitioner failed to show that he has a clear legal right which respondents had violated. To stress, petitioner relied on Sections 65 and 66 (on the jurisdiction of the NCIP), RA 8371 in arguing that respondents have no jurisdiction to prosecute him for his supposed criminal liability. However, his postulation is untenable because RA 8371 finds application in disputes relating to claims and rights of ICCs/IPs. This is not the case here. Let it be underscored that petitioner's indictment for Rape has nothing to do with his purported membership in an ICC, but by reason of his alleged acts that is covered by the RPC. At the same time, RA 8371 does not serve as a bar for criminal prosecution because crime is an offense against the society.24 Thus, penal laws apply to individuals without regard to his or her membership in an ICC. Definitely, customary laws and practices of the IPs may be invoked provided that they are not in conflict with the legal system of the country. There must be legal harmony between the national laws and customary laws and practices in order for the latter to be viable and valid and must not undennine the application of legislative enactments, including penal laws.25 I The recent case of Ha Datu Tawahig v. Lapinid26 (Ha Datul Tawahig) also involved a petition for mandamus against a judge an~ prosecutor in relation to the prosecution of another IP member and tribal leader for rape. Therein petitioner also relied on the provisions of RAj 83 71 maintaining that he was not covered by penal laws
Comments
Post a Comment