FACTS:

Roderick Sumatra, also known as Ha Datu Tawahig, filed a Petition for Mandamus against Judge Estela Alma Singco and other public prosecutors from Cebu City. Sumatra, a tribal leader of the Higaonon Tribe, was charged with rape by Lorriane Fe Igot. He argued that the Regional Trial Court lacked jurisdiction over him due to the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act. Judge Singco denied the motions. Vicente B. Gonzales, Jr. also filed a motion to release the indigenous person, which was not acted upon by the court. Sumatra then filed a petition for mandamus, seeking the court to uphold the resolution of the Dadantulan Tribal Court absolving him of liability.

The Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, which aims to prevent parties from directly resorting to the Supreme Court when relief can be obtained in lower courts. Trial courts have the authority to determine both facts and issues of law within their jurisdiction, while the Court of Appeals primarily serves as an appellate court. The Supreme Court establishes new precedents and is not a court of first instance. However, there are exceptions to the doctrine, and the Supreme Court may take cognizance of a case if there are genuine issues of constitutionality, transcendental importance, novelty, or better decision-making.

In this case, Sumatra could have sought recourse through the Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court took cognizance of the petition due to the novel issue of whether the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act removes jurisdiction over criminal cases involving indigenous peoples from courts of law. The Supreme Court determined that it does not. The petition for mandamus was filed by Sumatra, alleging that the respondent unlawfully neglected to perform a duty resulting from his office as a result of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act. Sumatra argued that his right has already been established and the respondent unlawfully neglected his duty. Sumatra sought relief through the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to control the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment.

2. Whether the provisions under Chapter IX of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act enable the application of customary laws and practices in dispute resolution for Indigenous peoples.

3. Does the State have the authority to resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates?

4. Does the State have the obligation to recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions?

5. Whether the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act limits the application of customary laws and practices only within the indigenous community and in harmony with the national legal system.

6. Whether the use of customary laws and practices in criminal cases involving indigenous peoples is prohibited.

7. Whether the State can yield criminal prosecution of indigenous peoples' criminal offenses to their customary laws and practices.

8. Whether the indigenous peoples' customary laws can undermine penal statutes in addressing offenses that are an affront to sovereignty.

RULING:

1. No, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to control the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment. Mandamus will only lie when the act complained of is outside the exercise of judicial discretion. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment. Mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion of an inferior tribunal when the act complained of is either judicial or quasi-judicial.

2. Yes, the provisions under Chapter IX of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act enable the application of customary laws and practices in dispute resolution for Indigenous peoples. These provisions provide for the primacy of customary laws and practices in resolving disputes involving indigenous cultural communities. They also establish the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples as the body that can resolve disputes that remain unresolved despite the exhaustion of remedies under customary laws. Decisions of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples can be appealed to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review.

3. Yes, the State has the authority to resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in accordance with the law.

4. Yes, the State has the obligation to recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions.

5. Yes, the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act limits the application of customary laws and practices only within the indigenous community and in harmony with the national legal system. Section 15 of the Act explicitly states that indigenous peoples have the right to use their own justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, and other customary laws and practices, but only within their respective communities and as long as it is compatible with the national legal system and internationally recognized human rights.

6. No, the use of customary laws and practices in criminal cases involving indigenous peoples is not prohibited. The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act does not compel courts of law to desist from taking cognizance of criminal cases involving indigenous peoples. It does not provide any correlative rights and duties supporting the petitioner's cause. Therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued.

7. The State cannot yield criminal prosecution of indigenous peoples' criminal offenses to their customary laws and practices. It is improper for the State to do so as a criminal action is pursued by the State in order to maintain social order and punish the offender for the breach of security and peace of the people at large. Customary laws may enable a measure of reparation for private injuries, but it will never enable the consummate recompense owed to the State and the Filipino people. Yielding prosecution would mean sanctioning a miscarriage of justice, which is contrary to the intent of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act.

8. Customary laws cannot work to undermine penal statutes designed to address offenses that are an affront to sovereignty. While the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act seeks to preserve indigenous peoples' customary laws and promote self-governance and empowerment, it does not intend to facilitate a miscarriage of justice. Customary laws must be applied in harmony with the national legal system and cannot disregard penal statutes.

PRINCIPLES:

• Discretion, when applied to public functionaries, means a power or right conferred upon them by law of acting officially, under certain circumstances, according to the dictates of their own judgments and consciences, uncontrolled by the judgments or consciences of others. Mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of discretion of an inferior tribunal when the act complained of is either judicial or quasi-judicial.

• Customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve disputes involving Indigenous peoples, as provided under Chapter IX of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act.

• The provisions under Chapter IX of the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act enable the application of customary laws and practices in dispute resolution for Indigenous peoples, segregating customary laws and practices from legislations and regulations of general application.

• The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act's provisions on self-governance and empowerment, right to ancestral domains, social justice and human rights, and cultural integrity reflect and bring to fruition the 1987 Constitution's aims of preservation of the rights of tribal Filipinos to preserve their way of life.

• The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates, in accordance with the law.

• The State is obligated to recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions, in accordance with the Constitution and the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act.

• Indigenous peoples have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace-building processes, and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities, as long as it is compatible with the national legal system and internationally recognized human rights.

• A criminal action is pursued by the State to maintain social order, punish the offender, deter others from committing similar offenses, isolate the offender from society, and reform and rehabilitate the offender.

• Criminal offenses are offenses against all citizens of the state and are an outrage to the sovereignty of the State.

• The public prosecutor is the representative of the State and serves the interest of justice, not just winning a case.

• Prosecution and punishment of crimes are attributes of the State's police power.

• The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act does not intend to facilitate a miscarriage of justice and self-governance and empowerment must be balanced with preservation and harmony with the national legal system.

• Customary laws cannot undermine penal statutes in addressing offenses that threaten sovereignty.