DATU MAMAHANDI Number: 2019-002

(PASTOR JOEL A. APOLINARIO For: Violation of Indigenous Peoples

Plaintiff, Rights under Sections 13, 60,
65, 72, & 73 in the R.A. 8371

-versus-

Atty. Charles L. Poso, Senior Agent, NBI, NCR and

Hon. Judge Marivic Balisi – Umali 1stVice Executive
Judge, RTC, Branch 20 Mla.
Defendants,
x----------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

FACTS OF THE CASE

KAPA-COMMUNITY MINISTRY INTERNATIONAL INC. (“KAPA” for brevity) its

President Ptr. Joel A. Apolinario (Datu Mamahandi of Kamayo Indigenous Cultural Community
at Bislig, Surigao del Sur).

Petitioner Enforcement and Investor Protection Department (EIPD) of the Commission

filed a Petition for Revocation with Prayer for Issuance of a case and Desist Order.

On February 14, 2019 the Commission En Banc ordered KAPA to IMMEDIATELY

CEASE AND DESIST UNDER PAIN OF CONTEMPT.

An Order dated April 4, 2019 issued by Presiding Judge Oscar P, Noel, Jr. of RTC,
Branch 35, General Santos City, SPL, CIVIL CASE NO. 19-806 For: INJUNCTION WITH
APPLICATION FOR 72-HOUR RESTRAINING ORDER, A TRO, AND/OR WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, filed KAPA rep. by Ptr. Joel A. Apolinario (Datu Mamahandi)
Petitioner against SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, respondent.

The dispositive portion reads as follows:

“The Respondent through the Solicitor General is hereby directed to file its responsive
pleading within five (5) days from receipt hereof not a Motion to Dismiss as mandated by the
rules. Moreover, the latter is directed to manifest whether they will conduct cross-examination of
the witnesses presented. Otherwise, they shall be deemed to have waived the same.

SO ORDERED.

On April 10, 2019, A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION issued by Atty.

WINSTON O. PAGADOR Clerk of Court V of RTC, Branch 35 General Santos City directing
SHERIFF SAMSON P. OLAIVAR, RTC , Branch 35, General Santos City to enforce this WRIT
OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION directing the respondents, their officials employees, agents

Page 1 of 14
designates or any other person acting in their behalf from implementing and enforcing the issued
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND OTHER RELATED ISSUANCES THAT
VIOLATES/INFRINGES the constitutional right of petitioner in the exercise of their religious
belief/freedom as guaranteed by Sec. 5, Art. III of our Constitution only.

Section 5, Art. XII of the Philippine Constitution provides,

“The State, subject to the provisions of this constitution and national development
policies and programs, shall protect the rights of the indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.”

The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property
rights on relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.

R.A. 8799 does not comply with Section 5, Art. XII of the Philippine Constitution as
mentioned-above.

While the Writ of Injunction is still pending, 1st Vice Executive Judge Hon. MARIVIC
BALISI-UMALI, NCR-RTC, Branch 20 Manila issued Search Warrant dated June 6, 2019 after
examining under oath applicant ATTY. CHARLES L. POSO, Senior Agent, National Bureau
of Investigation-National Capital Region and his witness SHANE G. CARILLO that there is
probable cause to believe that Violation of Section 26 in relation to Section 73 of Republic
Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code (SRC) is being committed
by JOEL A. APOLINARIO AND/OR THE INCORPORATORS/ DIRECTORS/
OFFICERS/ STAFFS/ EMPLOYEES/ OPERATORS/ TENANTS/ OCCUPANTS OF
KAPA- COMMUNITY MINISTRY INTERNATIONAL, INC., (KAPA) at Block 7, Lilac
Street, Dadiagas Heights, General Santos City.

On June 18, 2019 Datu Mamahandi (Ptr. Joel A. Apolinario, KAPA President) filed a
complaint in this court and were given ten (10) days to answer from receipt of the complaint.

The following are provisions of the R. A. 8371 which the defendants violated:

Sec. 13, R. A. 8371 provides “SELF-GOVERNANCE-The inherent right to self-

governance pursuant to their economic, social, and cultural development. The Sate recognizes
the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to self-governance and self-determination and respect the integrity
of their values, practices and institutions. Consequently, the integrity the State shall guarantee the
right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Sec. 60, R. A. 8371 provides “EXEMPTION FROM TAXES- All lands certified to be
ancestral domains shall be exempt from real property taxes, special levies, and other forms of
exaction except such portion of the ancestral domains as are actually used for large-scale
agriculture, commercial forest plantation and residential purposes or upon titling by private
persons: Provided, That all exactions shall be uses to facilitate the development and
improvement of the ancestral domains.”

Sec. 65, R.A. 8371 provides “PRIMACY OF CUSTOMARY LAWS- When disputes
involve ICCs/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute.”

Sec. 72, R.A. 8371 provides “PUNISHABLE ACT AND APPLICATION

PENALTIES- Any person who commits violation of this Act, such as, but not limited to,
unauthorized and/or unlawful intrusion upon any ancestral lands or domains as stated in Sec. 10,
Chapter III, or shall commit any of the prohibited acts mentioned in Sections 21 and 24, Chapter
V, Section 33, Chapter VI hereof, shall be punished in accordance with the customary laws of
the ICCs/IPs concerned: Provided, That no such penalty shall be cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment: Provided, further, That neither shall the death penalty or excessive fines be
imposed. This provision shall be without prejudice to the right of any ICCs/IPs to avail of the

Page 2 of 14
protection of existing laws. In which case, any person who violates any provision of this Act
shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment of not less than nine (9) months but not
more than twelve (12) years or fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000) nor
more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P 500,000) or both such fine and imprisonment upon
the discretion of the court. In addition, he shall be obliged to pay to the ICCs/IPs concerned
whatever damage may have been suffered by the latter as a consequence of the unlawful act.”

Sec. 73, R.A. 8371 provides “PERSON SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT- Perpetual

disqualification to public officials for juridical person cancellation of certificate of registration
and or license. If the offender is a juridical person, all officers such as, but not limited to, its
president, manager, or head of office responsible for their unlawful act shall be criminally liable
therefore, in addition to the cancellation of certificates of their registration and/or license:
Provided, That if the offender is a public official, the penalty shall include perpetual
disqualification to hold public office.”

On July 1, 2019 ten (10) days after, the defendants failed to answer, however a Supreme
Court Decision promulgated on March 20, 2019 by the Third Division in Ha DatuTawahig vs.
The Honorable Cebu City Prosecutor I, et al which was considered as part of the answer since
it is relevant to the case.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE INDIGENOUS

CULTURAL COMMUNITY

This Court denies the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the indigenous cultural
communities.

DISCUSSION

1. The Revised Penal Code Art. 2 – Application of its provisions, “EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
IN THE TREATIES AND LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION.”

The R.A. 8371 otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of
1997 is a special law and a law of Preferential Application. Therefore, the Revised
Penal Code cannot be applied to the members of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities/ Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs).

2. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) Art. 37 –

“INDIGENOUS PEOPLE 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.”

3. That, in Isagani Cruz et al vs. Secretary of DENR et al 347 SCRA 128 page 180, stated

“IT WAS THE CHIEFTAIN’S DUTY TO RULE AND GOVERN HIS SUBJECTS
AND PROMOTE THEIR WELFARE AND INTERESTS” A chieftain has wide powers
for he exercised all the functions of the Government. He was the Executive, Legislative and
Judge and was the Supreme Commander in the time of war. In addition to, Laws were
customary or written. Customary 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. 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 1250

Page 3 of 14
 A.D. other old codes are the Muslims Code of Luwaran and the Principal code of SULU,
whether customary or written, the laws dealt with various subjects such as Inheritance,
Divorce, Usury, Loans, Partnership, Crime and Punishment, Property rights, Family relation
and Adoption.

Reiterating Article 2 of Revised Penal Code Provides “Application of its provisions – Except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, ……. “

GENERAL RULE

Generally speaking, jurisdiction is usually tied to territory. The State governments possess the
ability to prosecute an offender because the defendant’s conduct is said to violate the provisions
of the RPC.

EXCEPTION

Provisions of treaties and laws of preferential application due to change of territory by virtue of
the R.A. 8371 otherwise known as the “Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 which
converted the territory of the Philippine Government to ancestral domain of the Tribal
Government.

What are these treatises?

I. International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) ratified by the
Philippine Government on December 16, 1966

II. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ratified by Philippine
Senate on December 16, 1966

III. International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169 an Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples Convention of 1989

IV. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) ratified by
the Philippine Government on September 13, 2007

ICESCR

Article I of ICESCR provides,

“All people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.”

On January 3, 1976 the date of the effectivity of the Covenant obligates the Philippine
Government to report every five (5) years to the ICESCR with seven (7) objectives, one of
which:

Review – a comprehensive review of National Legislation, administrative rules and procedures,

and practices in the effort to ensure the fullest possible conformity with the covenant.

In other words, the National Legislation shall be subjected to be reviewed and in the event that
there is a need to change such, then reauthorization of said laws should be undertaken for
possible fullest conformity with the covenant.

Such in the case of Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) upon reviewing the said provision
it shows that there are two exceptions mentioned first the treaties and second laws of preferential
application.

Page 4 of 14
That under section 2, last paragraph, R.A. 8371, “Towards these ends, the state shall institute and
establish the necessary mechanisms to enforce and guarantee the realization of these rights,
taking into consideration their customs, traditions, values, beliefs, interests and institutions, and
to adopt and implement measures to protect their rights to their ancestral domains.

Such exceptions shall be used as an expert mechanism in the approach on how to reauthorize the
Revised Penal Code particularly in the fractured criminal jurisdiction due to ancestral domains
owned by the indigenous people, which are once a territory of the Philippine Government.

This territorial approach is not, however, the approach used with respect to criminal jurisdiction
under customary law operating within the ancestral domain of the indigenous peoples.

The indigenous cultural community is centered primarily on the identity of the people involved
in the crime (both the victim and the perpetrator), and not only on the place where the conduct
occurred.

It should bear in mind that indigenous people are not Filipino people, for the following reasons:

1. The term Filipino derived from the Spanish King Philip II of the colonial period from
1565-1898.

2. Pre-conquest people are existing since time immemorial who owned the ancestral
domains left by their ancestors through succession and are called indigenous people.

3. Filipinizing indigenous peoples means land grabbing of ancestral domains because the
ownership is the issue in the name Filipino being a foreigner who have taken vast tract of
lands which belong to our ancestors the indigenous peoples.

4. By using terms “Philippine IPs” would misrepresent IPs in the UN, all Government
Agencies and LGUs as IPMR (Indigenous People Mandatory Representative) because
instead of the IPs themselves the State-NCIP has represented them (IPs).

5. The identity approach is very relevant in the jurisdictional issue involving indigenous
peoples because if it is not clearly distinguished it would lead to confusion as to whose
jurisdiction will be applied.

6. Indigenous peoples are not Filipinos

In the Implementing Rules of R.A. 8371, Rule IX, Part II, Section 1, par. a)

“Any person who is a non-IP, whether Filipino or Alien”

In other words, indigenous peoples are not considered citizens of the Philippines.

Under the Implementing Rules of R.A. 8371, Rule II, par. I) provides,

“Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples……became historically

differentiated from the majority of Filipinos…..”

This means, that indigenous cultural communities/ indigenous peoples are not Filipinos.

If we are calling indigenous peoples as Filipinos then King Philip of Spain was here before
the indigenous peoples. This is the reason that the foreigners want to filipinize our ancestors
so that they will own our ancestral domains.

7. To avoid confusion the following shall be observed properly.

Page 5 of 14
 a.) The tribal government possess inherent criminal jurisdiction over all indigenous
peoples (IPs) (IP vs. IP) in the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs).

b.) The State government has exclusive jurisdiction over all non-indigenous peoples only
(non-IPs) (non-IP vs. non-IP)

c.) When one of the parties is an IP (IP vs. non-IP) then the tribal government shall have
jurisdiction.

This fractured criminal jurisdiction creates a great deal of confusion and requires extensive
coordination between police departments, prosecutor’s offices, court systems, probation/ parole
offices. The complex bureaucracy often has a detrimental impact on the ability of all
governments to adequately address crimes involving indigenous peoples.

To avoid confusion, the Memorandum of Agreement between DOJ and NCIP settled this
fractured criminal jurisdiction, which states “to harmonize the existing rules of procedure, it is
imperative to observe proper coordination between NCIP Legal Officers and DOJ City and
Provincial Prosecutors in the preliminary investigation and prosecution of offenses defined
in R.A. 8371.”

Because International law is a law of coordination while national law is a law of subordination,
so in dealing with IPs, the government authorities should be careful that they are dealing with
indigenous peoples who are persons under international laws.

In the last par. of page 15 and first par. of page 16 of the Decision promulgated on March 20,
2019 by the Third Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines in Ha DatuTawahig vs. The
Honorable Cebu City Prosecutor 1, et. al. states:

“Section 65 ought not be read as an all-encompassing, unqualified authorization. Rather, it must

be viewed within the confines of how it is a component of a larger mechanism for self-
governance. Section 65 is qualified by Section 15. With respect to dispensing justice, resolving
conflicts, and peace-building, the application of customary laws and practices is permissible only
to the extent that it is in harmony with the national legal system. A set of customary laws and
practices is effective only within the confines of the specific indigenous cultural community that
adopted and adheres to it.”

“Section 15 of R.A. 8371 provides, 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.”

The last phrase “and with internationally recognized human rights” was eliminated, giving
the impression that the above-mentioned section is limited only to national legal system,

Under Par. 2 of Article 37, UNDRIP provides, Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as
diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties, agreements and
other constructive arrangements.

It is lamentable to note that the omitted phrase is the portion of international law, recognizing
human right which is the spirit of the indigenous peoples rights act (IPRA) of 1997, and without
such phrase the IPRA is dead.

The word “only”in the above mentioned paragraph refers to the national legal system or the
Revised Penal Code and limits the IPRA to operate under the criminal law and not the customary
international law, is a human rights violation of the highest degree.

Page 6 of 14
If this is the case, there is no need to legislate the IPRA under the Decade of the Rights of the
Indigenous People from 1990 to 2000, considering that it is the year of the world’s indigenous
peoples, strengthening international cooperation and not only viable to the scope and application
of national criminal statutes.

Under second paragraph of the Supreme Court Decision promulgated March 20, 2019 page 16
stated,

“The impetus for preservation does not exist in vacuum. The 1987 Constitution qualifies the
State’s duty of “recogniz[ing] and promot[ing] the rights of indigenous cultural communities” as
necessarily operating “within the framework of national unity and development.” This reference
to “national unity” is as much an articulation of an ideal as it is a legal formulation. Thus, it
entails the imperative of legal harmony. Customary laws and practices are valid and viable only
to the extent that they do not undermine the proper scope and application of legislative
enactments, including criminal statutes.

Constitution vs. Treaty

Generally, the treaty is rejected in the local forum but is upheld by international tribunals as a
demandable obligation of the signatories under the maxim pacta surnt servanda.

The treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, and the same
may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the state (Ichong vs. Hernandez, G.
R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957).

Doctrine of incorporation international law are adopted as part of a state’s municipal law, by a
general provisions or clause usually in its Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987 Constitution).

Daniel Chapter 2

Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon dreamed a great image, whose brightness was

excellent, stood before him, and the form thereof was terrible.

The image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his
thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

He (the king) saw a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his
feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them into pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass,
the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like a chaff of the summer
threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone
that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the earth.

This is the interpretation of the dream (Dan 2:36-45)

This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a
king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven
hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all, Thou art this head of gold.
And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass,
which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron:
forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all all things: and as iron that breaketh all
these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of
potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the
strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of
the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly
strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle

Page 7 of 14
themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not
mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom,
which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall
break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou
sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the
iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what
shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

In Daniel Chapter 7

Daniel had a dream, and four beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first
was like a lion and had eagle wings, second like a bear,….another like a leopard …. And the
fourth beast dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly: and it had great iron teeth: ….. and
fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon the earth, which shall be diverse from all
kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Verse 25

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most
High, and think to change times and LAWS: and they shall be given into his hand until a TIME
and TIMES and the DIVIDING OF TIME, which means;

1. Time = 360 days

2. Times = 720 days
3. ½ Time = 180 days
________________
1, 260 days or years (Prophetic)

The father of civil law Roman Emperor Justinian and endorsed the said law to the Papacy from
538 A.D. to 1798 A.D. or 1, 260 years that on 1798 the Papacy ended, because Pope Pius VI was
captured by Gen. Berthier of Napoleon’s army.

Change of times

In Exodus 20:8-11, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and
do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD they God: in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy
cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the
Sabbath day, and hollowed it.

In the Holy Quran 2:65 states,

And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how we said unto them Be ye apes,
despised and hated!”

Under the bisayan meaning of Saturday is Ligidligid which means rest.

On May 7, 321 AD – How Sunday Became the Christian Day of Rest. It was Roman Emperor
Constant decreed that sun-day would be the Roman day of rest as exactly prophesied by Daniel
that he think to change times.

Change of LAWS

Exodus 20:4-6

Page 8 of 14
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow
down thyself to them, nor serve them: for 1 the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation to them that hate
me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”

Tithing in Customary Law

Deuteronomy 14: 22-29

“Though shall truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
And thou shall eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name
there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy
flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always. And if the way be too long for
thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy
God shall choose to set his name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee: then shalt
thoun turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place where
the Lord thy God shall choose: and thou shalt bestowed that money for whatsoever thy soul
lusteth after, for oxen, or for the sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy
soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and
thine household, and the levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no
part nor inheritance with thee. At the end of the three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of
the thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates; and the levite, (because he
hath no part nor inheritance with thee), and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow,
which are within thy gates, shalt come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God may
bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.”

The customary law of tithing was not the collection of money but by means of food. They eat the
tithes in that place where God has chosen to place his name there and the indigenous people was
ruled by the priests.

Tithing in Civil Law

By agreement at an early date between the Pope of the crown of Spain, all tithes of the Indies
where given by the former to the latter and the disposition made the king of the fund thus created
is indicated by law 1, title 16, book 1, which is as follows;

Whereas the ecclesiastical tithes from the Indies belong to us by the apostolic concessions of the
supreme pontiffs, we command the officials of our royal treasury of those provinces to collect
and cause to be collected all tithes due and to become due from the crops and flocks of the
residents in the manner in which it has been the custom to pay the same, and from these tithes the
churches shall be provided with competent persons of good character to serve them and with all
ornaments and things which may be necessary for divide worship, to the end that these churches
maybe well served an equipped, and we shall be informed of God, our Lord; This is the changing
of tithing from food into money under the civil law concept.

That the logo of the Supreme Court of the Philippines adopted the customary law considering
that the Ten Commandments inscribed upon the logo is a symbol of customary or the divine law.

Page 9 of 14
 Think to change

Imagine an idea and behavior that have been institutionalized in laws and policies and has left
wreckage in the indigenous political structure by incorporating and assimilating us into their
colonial system. Historical records show that papal bulls demonstrate grave injustices in the
taking of the ancestral domains of the indigenous peoples.

The Pope Claims to be God on Earth

Throughout the centuries of Rome’s existence, the popes have regularly claimed to be divine. As
the supposed successor of Peter, the Pope claims infallibility, the position of God on Earth, and
ability to judge and excommunicate angels.

Historical background

Centuries ago, in the period of mercantilism at the dawn of capitalism, two powerful maritime
states were emerging: Portugal and Spain. They began to explore and conquer new territories and
with Pope Alexander VI’s intervention known as the Papal Bull of 1493, they agreed to the
divide the world: one division to be colonized by Portugal and the other by Spain.

This led to the “discovery” of the Philippine Islands. Invoking the feudal conquest theory, they
declared all the lands and resources in their “newly-discovered” territories as owned by the
Spanish crown. This theory is now known in legal circles as the Regalian Doctrine.

Annex UNDRIP

The General Assembly,

Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of
peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural
differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially
unjust.

Under Sec. 21, Joint Administrative Order (JAO) provides, “Suspension of titling and
Registration Activities. Upon the effectivity of this Order, the implementation of Land
Acquisition and Distribution (LAD) and issuance of CLOA by DAR, ancestral domains/ancestral
land titling by NCIP, processing/ issuance of patents by the DENR and registration by of titles by
LRA over identified contentious areas shall remain suspended unless resolved by the concerned
Joint Provincial/Regional or National Committee. Pursuant thereto NCIP, DAR and DENR shall
submit complete lists of CADTs/CALTs, CLOAs and FPs, respectively, which shall be subject
of the suspension of registration activities.

On April 8, 2013 the undersigned has transmitted a copy of the native title covering 31, 804, 621
hectares with the offices of NCIP, DENR, DAR and LRA and the Hacienda de Mandaue is
included in that native title. Such notification terminates any legal basis for the jurisdiction
previously claimed and at the same time the turnover of the areas controlled and managed by the
government agencies for the implementation of territorial jurisdiction for the ICCs/IPs ancestral
domains.

The undersigned is a great grant son of Leon Kilat (Pantaleon Sordi Villegas) who organized the
Cebuano Katipunero on 1898 and was able to establish a native government of Cebu on
December 30, 1898.

From 1898 to the 1998 the Philippine Government was indebted to the Tribal Government in
using the land covering 7, 701 islands as an equitable mortgage or back rentals, which shall be

Page 10 of 14
negotiated between them in the case No. 003 entitled Tribal Government vs. Philippine
Government now pending in the International Tribal Court.

The Dragon – given laws (civil laws) under the Spanish Regime.

In Revelation 13 verses 1-5 and 16-18 provides,

“And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads
and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And
the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his
mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And saw
one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the
world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the
beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make
war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies;
and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he causeth all, both small
and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their
foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the
beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the
number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and
six.

Word Meaning Reference

I John (Saint John) Rev. 1:1

Sea – people Rev. 17:15
beast – defeated Rev. 17:8
iron (4th kingdom – Rome) Dan 2:40
heads – mountains Rev. 17:9
horns – kings Rev. 17:12
leopard – brass (3rd kingdom – Greece) Dan 2:39
bear – silver (2nd kingdom – Medo – Persia) Dan 2:39
lion – head of Gold (1st kingdom – Babylon) Dan 2:37-38
dragon – old serpent, Devil, Satan, Receiver Rev. 12:9
religious – law of Indies – Barlin v Ramirez
authority – religious – tithing, Sabbath
Political- Taxation – laws – Dan 7:25

Substituting the word meaning in the above-mentioned in Revelation 13 verses 1-2

Sometimes in 99 A.D. John stood upon the sand of the sea in the island of Patmus, Greece. And
saw a man that rise up from the people of Italy. And that man is the successor of three (3)
kingdoms namely, Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece and the Devil gave his power and throne
and great authority which is religio-political in nature.

One of the heads was wounded after the beast when Pope Pius VI was captured by Gen. Berthier
of Napoleon’s army, but was healed, when Benito Mussolini of the Italian government ratified
the Lateran Treaty and by cardinal secretary of state Pietro Gasparri for the Papacy, Vatican City
on February 11, 1929. And continued his power for more than three years, according to the
prophecy.

“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he
spoke as a dragon.”

This beast out of the earth symbolizes the United States of America who looks so kind like a
lamb and has a fury like of a dragon. And he had a power to persecute the people who are not
written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Page 11 of 14
Further, in Rev. 13:17 stated,

“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the
number of his name.”

Let us bear in mind that this done in three alternative ways;

1. Mark (Sunday) or
2. Name (any likeness of anything) or
3. Number (666)

Example: Taxation Law this could be a name which is part of the ways in persecuting the
people in other words, they are destroyed wonderfully.

Revised Penal Code fulfill of prophecy of that the beast can no longer continue to make war with
the saints (indigenous people).

From 1929 extended 3.5 years or 3 years on 1932. On January 1, 1932 the Revised Penal Code
took effect which terminate the power of the beast to make war with the saints (indigenous
people) in fulfillment of the the prophecy. The Codigo Penal of the Spanish Regime was changed
into Revised Penal Code by the American Regime. The former is a national law while the latter
has a provision on International Law particularly Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code which
provides, “Application of its provisions – Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application,…..” These are the exception to the general rule in the application of the
Penal Code of the Revised Penal Code.

In applying the Revised Penal Code by Search Warrant the Regional Trial Court has no
jurisdiction considering that Datu Mamahandi (Pastor Joel A. Apolinario) belongs to the
Kamayo Indigenous Cultural Community.

“WHEREFORE, the defendants were notified but despite due notice they failed to
answer, however the decision of the Supreme Court promulgated on March 20, 2019 entitled
“Ha Datu Tawahig (Roderick D. Sumatra), Tribal Chieftain, Higaonon Tribe, Petitioner,
vs. The Honorable Cebu City Prosecutor I Lineth Lapinid, Cebu City Prosecutor II
Fernando Gubalane, Assistant City Prosecutor Ernesto Narido, Jr., Cebu City Prosecutor
Nicolas Sellon, and the Honorable Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 12, Cebu City
Estela Alma Singco, Respondents, has been considered by the counsel for the plaintiff.”

And it was proven that Atty. Charles L. Poso, Senior Agent, NBI, NCR and Hon. Judge
Marivic Balisi – Umali 1st Vice Executive Judge, RTC, Branch 20 Manila are guilty in the
issuance of search warrant. They are ordered to return the goods, property and money that they
have taken pursuant to the case decided by the Supreme Court in Castro vs. Pabalan (1976).

There are several grounds upon which this judgment must be affirmed.

1. As to the defendants, The Honorable Marivic Balisi-Umali and Attorney Charles L. Poso,
it appears that they issued a Search Warrant upon a tribal Chieftain of the Kamayo
Indigenous Cultural Community who is exempted in the application of the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code as Provided in Article 2 of the said code, in CASTRO vs.
PABALAN (1976) goods, property and money seized by virtue of an illegal warrant must
be returned, with interest of thirty (30) percent per month until fully restored.

2. In the event that the defendants cannot be returned the goods, property and money with
the interest stipulated above after three (3) consecutive months upon receipt of this
judgment. The Tribal Government will guarantee the payout by the International Bank of
Maharlika Self-Governance for the KAPA members involved in the taking of the said
goods, property and money after negotiation with the Philippine Government.

Page 12 of 14
 3. This judgment shall serve as a promissory note to all lenders of KAPA members who are
victims of the taking of said fund.

4. The Kapa shall fully operate after the defendants duly received this judgment.

Done this 1st day of July, 2019 at Sitio Atoyay, N. Sering, Socorro, Surigao del Norte,
Maharlika.

DATUBONTITO LEON KILAT

(Atty. Vicente B. Gonzales, Jr. LLD)
Pangulo sa Husay /International Chief Justice

Attachment:

1. Petition for Mandamus

2. Supreme Court Decision Promulgated on March 20, 2019
3. ILO No. 169
4. UNDRIP
5. ICESCR
6. ICCPR
7. R.A. 8371
8. IRR of R.A. 8371

Jurisprudence:

1. Cruz vs. DENR et al G.R. No. 135835

2. Guatemala Criminal Case
3. Tinggulan Tribal Case
4. Criminal Case No. 1527 Direct Assault
MTC, Magpet, Cotabato

Cc:

ATTY. CHARLES L. POSO

Senior Agent, National Bureau of Investigation-National Capital Region

HON. JUDGE MARIVIC BALISI – UMALI

1st Vice Executive Judge
RTC, Branch 20 Manila, Philippines

MCTC- Dapa, Surigao del Norte

RTC- Branch 31, Dapa, Surigao del Norte

RTC- Branch 29, Surigao City

CA-Manila, Philippines

SUPREME COURT-Manila, Philippines

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT- Malacañang Palace, Manila, Philippines

UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations-760 United Nations Plaza, Manhattan, New York

Page 13 of 14
City, New York 10017, United States

ICC-Street 69, Dubai Sports City, Sh Mohammed Bin Zayed Road, Dubai, PO Box 500 070,
UAE

ICJ- Peace Palace Carnegieplein 22517 KJ, The Hague, The Netherlands

Page 14 of 14