The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) does not strip regular courts of their jurisdiction over criminal offenses, even when the accused is an indigenous person. Individuals from indigenous cultural communities charged with crimes cannot use the IPRA to evade prosecution and liability under the laws of the land. This means that despite tribal laws and customs, national laws prevail in criminal matters, ensuring consistent justice for all while respecting indigenous rights.

When Worlds Collide: Can Tribal Justice Override National Criminal Law?

This case revolves around Roderick D. Sumatra, also known as Ha Datu Tawahig, a tribal chieftain of the Higaonon Tribe, who was charged with rape. After charges were filed in court, the Dadantulan Tribal Court absolved Sumatra of the charges. Sumatra sought to dismiss the criminal case against him, arguing that, as an indigenous person, customary laws should take precedence, citing Sections 15 and 65 of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA). He petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the Cebu City prosecutors and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to recognize the resolution of the Dadantulan Tribal Court, which had cleared him of any liability. The central legal question is whether the IPRA grants indigenous tribunals the power to override the jurisdiction of regular courts in criminal matters.

Judge Singco denied Sumatra’s Motion to Quash, stating that the IPRA did not apply to the prosecution because it did not involve ancestral domain claims or the rights of indigenous communities. The Supreme Court noted that the doctrine of hierarchy of courts was not followed because an equally effective avenue for relief was available to the petitioner through recourse to the Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the Court addressed the novel issue of whether the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act works to remove from courts of law jurisdiction over criminal cases involving indigenous peoples.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by explaining the nature of a writ of mandamus. According to Rule 65, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for mandamus is appropriate when a tribunal unlawfully neglects to perform an act specifically enjoined by law or unlawfully excludes another from enjoying a right or office. To be successful, the petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right and a corresponding ministerial duty on the part of the respondent. Mandamus cannot be used to establish a right, but only to enforce one that is already established, a principle highlighted in Lihaylihay v. Tan. The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal right must be clearly established, and the duty must be ministerial rather than discretionary.

Petitioner anchored his plea on Section 65 of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), which provides for the primacy of customary laws and practices when disputes involve ICCs/IPs. Specifically, Section 65 of the IPRA states:

SECTION 65. Primacy of Customary Laws and Practices. — When disputes involve ICCs/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute.

The Court clarified that the provisions under Chapter IX do not only lend legitimacy to and enable the continuing efficacy and viability of customary laws and practices to maintain order and dispense justice within indigenous cultural communities. It emphasized that this provision should be read in conjunction with the rest of the IPRA, particularly Section 15, which states:

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.

Building on this, the Court noted that Section 15 limits the application of indigenous justice systems to the extent that they are compatible with the national legal system and internationally recognized human rights. Therefore, Section 65 should not be seen as an unqualified authorization for customary laws to override national laws, but rather as a component of self-governance within the framework of national unity and legal harmony.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the IPRA does not compel courts to relinquish jurisdiction over criminal cases involving indigenous peoples. A crime is an offense against society, a breach of the security and peace of the people at large. The prosecution and punishment of crimes are inherent attributes of the State’s police power, aimed at maintaining social order and deterring offenders. Permitting customary laws to supersede criminal prosecution would disregard the State’s role in upholding justice and protecting its citizens, thereby undermining the sovereignty of the State.

The Court underscored that the intent of the IPRA was not to facilitate a miscarriage of justice, but to balance the preservation of indigenous culture with the maintenance of national unity and legal harmony. It found no basis in the IPRA to support the claim that courts should abandon jurisdiction over criminal proceedings in favor of customary laws. The Dadantulan Tribal Court’s resolution did not grant the petitioner any right to be spared from criminal liability, and the Regional Trial Court was obligated to rule on the alleged liability based on established legal principles.

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) allows indigenous tribunals to override the jurisdiction of regular courts in criminal matters, specifically regarding a rape charge.
What did the Dadantulan Tribal Court decide?	The Dadantulan Tribal Court issued a resolution clearing Roderick Sumatra, a tribal chieftain, of liability for the rape charges and absolving him from criminal, civil, and administrative liability.
Why did the Regional Trial Court deny the Motion to Quash?	The RTC denied the Motion to Quash because the case did not involve ancestral domain claims or rights of indigenous communities, and therefore, the IPRA’s provisions on customary laws did not apply.
What does Section 65 of the IPRA state?	Section 65 of the IPRA states that when disputes involve Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs), customary laws and practices should be used to resolve the dispute.
How does Section 15 of the IPRA limit the application of customary laws?	Section 15 limits the application of customary laws by requiring them to be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus, holding that the IPRA does not compel courts to relinquish jurisdiction over criminal cases involving indigenous peoples. The court directed the respondents to proceed with the resolution of the criminal case.
Why can’t customary laws override criminal prosecution?	Criminal offenses are considered offenses against the State and its citizens, and allowing customary laws to supersede criminal prosecution would undermine the State’s role in upholding justice and protecting its citizens.
What is the significance of the ruling for indigenous rights?	The ruling clarifies that while indigenous rights and customary laws are recognized, they must be balanced with national unity and the national legal system, ensuring that penal statutes are not undermined.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that while indigenous rights are protected and customary laws respected, the national legal system takes precedence in criminal matters to ensure consistent justice and maintain social order. This ruling clarifies the scope and limitations of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act, affirming that it does not provide a blanket exemption from criminal liability for indigenous individuals.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Ha Datu Tawahig v. Cebu City, G.R. No. 221139, March 20, 2019