REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

HA DATU TAWAHIG
(RODERICK D. SUMATRA)
Tribal Chieftain, Higaonon Tribe,

Petitioner,

-versus- SC-G.R. SP No.._221139___

FOR: Mandamus with prayer for writ
of Preliminary Injunction

THE HONORABLE CEBU CITY

PROSECUTOR-I LINETH LAPINID,
CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR-II
FERNANDO GUBALANE, ASSIST.
CITY PROSECUTOR ERNESTO
NARIDO, JR., CEBU CITY PROSE-
CUTOR NICOLAS SELLON, THE
HONORABLE JUDGE OF REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT BRANCH - 12 CEBU
CITY ESTELA ALMA SINGCO,

Respondents,
x-------------------------------------------------/

PETITION for MANDAMUS

COMES NOW, Petitioner, through the undersigned Tribal Customary Counsel, unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully states:

PREFATORY STATEMENT
 As a party to the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Philippines has expressly assumed
certain obligations. The Philippine has obligations under international law owed not only to the
international community but also to individuals. Such is the evolution of customary international law
where natural persons now possess certain rights and obligations as do states and internal organizations.

However for the past forty (40) years the government did not comply with the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which was ratified by the Philippine
Government on December 16, 1966 and such entering into force on January 3, 1976 that the government
shall report every five (5) years to the ICESCR with seven (7) objectives:

1.) 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;

2.) Monitoring-Monitors the actual situation with respect to each of the rights on a regular basis
and is thus aware of the extent to which the various rights are, or not being enjoyed by all
individuals within its territory or under its jurisdiction;

3.) Action Plan-to provide the basis for the elaboration of clearly stated and carefully targeted
policies, including the establishment of priorities, and to work out and adopt a detailed plan of action
for the progressive implementation which reflect the provisions of the Covenant;

4.) Participation – to facilitate public scrutiny of government policies with respect to

economic, social and cultural rights and to encourage the involvement of various economic, social and
cultural sectors of society in formulation, implementation and review of the relevant policies;

5.) Evaluation-to provide a basis on which the State party itself, as well as the Committee, can
effectively evaluate the extent to which progress has been made towards the realization of the
obligation contained of the covenant;

6.) Identification-to enable the State party itself to develop a better understanding of the
problems and shortcomings encountered in efforts to realize progressively the full range of
economic, social and cultural rights. This process of identification and recognition of the
relevant difficulties then provides the framework within which more appropriate policies can be
devised;

7.) Exchange of information- to enable the committee, and the States parties as a whole, to
facilitate the exchange of information among States and to develop a better understanding
of the common problems faced by states and a fuller appreciation of the type of measures which
might be taken to promote effective realization of each of the rights contained in the
covenant;

Under article 1 of ICESCR “ 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. ”

The Philippines must take steps to enforce its treaty obligations and make reparations for the
breach of these obligations, and in doing so comply with its treaty obligations under the ICESCR signed
and duly ratified by the Philippines, if it is to move forward in protecting these cherished rights that are
essential to democracy, progress and the basic values of humanity.

Section 17, Article 14, of 1987 Philippine Constitution “ The State shall recognize, respect,
and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures,
traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies”

Section 2 paragraph c) of R.A. 8371 “ The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of
ICCs/IPs to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these
rights in the formulation of national laws and policies”

That under Chapter IV of R.A. 8371 Right to Self-Governance and Empowerment provides,

Section 13. Self-Governance- The State recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to self-
governance and self- determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and
institutions. Consequently, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.

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.

Section 20, R.A. 8371- Means for Development/Empowerment of ICCs/IPs. The Government
shall establish the means for the full development/empowerment of the ICCs/IPs own institutions and
initiatives and, where necessary, provide the resources needed therefor.
That under Rule IV Part 1, sec 1 para b & para c of the IRR of R.A. 8371 provides,

b) The indigenous structures, systems, and institutions are not supplanted by other forms of
non-indigenous governance; and/ or.

c) Mechanisms that allow the interfacing of indigenous systems of governance with the national
systems are established.

That under sec 65 of R.A. 8371 provides.

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

Despite the above stated laws, the Dadantulan Tribal Court, as our Justice System
Institution since time immemorial was not recognized by the public respondents, thereby violated
our cultural rights for the full development/empowerment of our own institutions and initiatives.

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”

The Petitioner begs this Honorable Court to uphold and respect the Decision of the Dadantulan
Tribal Court dated January 3, 2007 now pending at the Regional Trial Court Cebu City with case number
CBU-81130.

That under the rules of court, Rule 117, sec 7 provides, “…Former conviction or
acquittal shall be a bar at another prosecution due to Double Jeopardy (Non Bis In Idem)…”

The Philippines is yet to translate some of these obligations into concrete action. In particular,
with respect to the Petitioner Tribal Chieftain Higaonon Tribe, Ha Datu Tawahig (Roderick D. Sumatra),
the Philippines has to comply with its obligations to provide redress for the human rights violations he has
suffered under the country’s penal system. In particular, there was a breach of the right to dignity of all
detained persons, a violation of Petitioner’s right to be treated in accordance with his Political status as a
detainee Indigenous Person, his right not to be subjected to mental torture, and a violation of his due
process rights during the time of his arrest.
 The prohibition against mental torture is recognized as non-derogable and no reservations are
allowed to be made regarding the same under the International Convention Civil and Political Rights
ICCPR. The nature of this norm prohibiting mental torture is also widely recognized as erga omnes, owed
to both individuals and to the community of nations, including the parties to the ICCPR. Because this is a
recognized principle of international law, it is therefore a part of the law of the land under the
incorporation clause of the 1987 Constitution, and even much more so since such is also treaty law
ratified by the Philippine Senate.

NATURE AND PROPRIETY OF THE PETITION

1. This is an Indigenous Peoples (IP) petition for Mandamus under rule 65 of the Rules
of Court with a prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and/or permanent injunction.

2. This petition seeks this Honorabe Court to uphold and respect the decision of the Dadantulan
Tribal Court as the justice system used by our ancestors using our customary laws since time
immemorial.

3. Given that neither statute nor other forms of law provide for a speedy, adequate and effective remedy
to enforce, Mandamus under Rule 65 is the proper and only remedy available to the Petitioner.
Under section 3 of Rule 65 “when any officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, and there is no other plain,
adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may
file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent , immediately or at some other time to be specified by
the court, to do the act required to be done…and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by
reason of wrongful acts of the respondent.”
4. Petitioner has properly verified this petition and duly certified the same against forum shopping.
Petitioner has also served copies of the petition upon the respondent by personal service. The
corresponding docket fees were also paid upon the filing of the petition.

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

5. This petition is filed within the reglementary period provided for under the Rules of Court, i.e.,
sixty (60) days from notice of the judgement, order or resolution or notice of the denial of a motion
for reconsideration of such judgement, order or resolution. 1

6. Petitioner is mindful that Rule 65, section 7 of the Rules of Court provides, 2
“Expediting
proceedings; injunctive relief- The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting
the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction
for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt
the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction
has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case.

_______________________

1
RULESOF COURT, Rules 65 section 4

2
RULESOF COURT, Rules 65 section 7

7. With the Respondents’ continuing omission against Petitioner’s request for the appearance of a
Tribal Customary Counsel, to hear the pending MOTION TO RELEASE THE INDIGENOUS
PERSON DUE TO PREVENTIVE DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO INTERNATIONAL
3
LABOUR ORGANIZATION (ILO) CONVENTION No. 169 dated May 4, 2015. Wherein the
Court Orders4 dated June 5, 2015 and September 11, 2015 seeking authority from the Supreme
Court of the Tribal Customary Counsel to defend as Counsel of the accused is judicial in character . The
Petitioner opted to be defended by a Customary Counsel, because the latter has the only
authority to interpret customary laws and cannot be supplanted by any other lawyer as per Rule IV, Part
1, section1, paragraph b) of IRR of R.A 8371. The Tribal Customary Counsel Ha Datu Bontito
Leon Kilat (Vicente B. Gonzales, Jr.) as a tribal chieftain of Higaonon Tribe and a member of the
Indigenous Cultural Communities is a party to the case under the concept of customary law.

8. The Cultural Communities are in chaos because of the detention and killings of Tribal Leaders in
Cebu, Caraga, Malaybalay Bukidnon, and Magpet Cotabato. There is necessity to address this problem
like this case at bar wherein continued arbitrary detention gives instability and demoralization to
the Tribal Communities and they come to the extent of doubting the Indigenous Peoples’(IPs)
Rights as mandated under the constitution, R.A. 8371 and other international Convention for the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, in order to prevent retaliation from the Indigenous Cultural Communities
(ICCs)/ Indigenous Peoples (IPs) that will explode into a TRIBAL WAR in Mindanao and the Visayas
Region.

_________________________

3
Annex “A”- MOTION TO RELEASE THE INDGENOUS PERSON
DUE TO PREVENTIVE DESCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION
(ILO) CONVENTION 169

4
Annex “B” Court Order dated June 5, 2015
Annex “B1” Court Order dated September 11, 2015

9. Petitioner is thus constrained to invoke this Honorable Court’s supervisory power under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner do not have any appeal, or other plain, adequate, or speedy remedy
in the ordinary course of law. This Honorable Court has declared that a “remedy is plain, speedy and
adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of
the tribunal or inferior court” 5

There is no such available remedy against the Respondents’ continuing omission, inaction
and delay.
 PARTIES

10. Petitioner, Ha Datu Tawahig (Roderick D. Sumatra) Tribal Chieftain of the Higaonon Tribe,
is a member of Indigenous Cultural Communities and presently detained at the Cebu City Jail. He
may be served with papers and court processes at the address of Cebu City Jail, Barangay Kalunasan
Cebu City;

11. Public Respondent Honorable Cebu City Prosecutor-I Lineth Lapinid, has office address at Ground
floor Fernan Hall of Justice, M Velez Street, Capitol Compound, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu, Philippines,
where she may be served with papers and other court processes;

12 Public Respondent Honorable Cebu City Prosecutor-II Fernando Gubalane has office address at
Ground floor Fernan Hall of Justice, M Velez Street, Capitol Compound, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu,
Philippines, where he may be served with papers and other court processes;

13. Public Respondent Honorable Cebu City Prosecutor Nicolas Sellon has office address at Ground
floor Fernan Hall of Justice, M Velez Street, Capitol Compound, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu, Philippines,
where he may be served with papers and other court processes;

________________

5
Tan et at. v. Court of Appeals et al G.R. No. 164 966, June 8, 2007

14. Public Respondent Honorable Assistant City Prosecutor Ernesto E. Narido, Jr. has office address at
Ground floor Fernan Hall of Justice, M Velez Street, Capitol Compound, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu,
Philippines, where he may be served with papers and other court processes;

15. Public Respondent Honorable Judge Estela Alma A. Singco, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court,
Branch 12 Cebu City has office address at 3rd floor Quimonda IT Center, Don Sergio Osmena,
 North Reclamation Area, Cebu City, where she may be served with papers and other court
processes.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

16. The Philippines is a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [ hereinafter
‘the covenants’], having ratified the covenant on December 16, 1966 and such entering into force
on January 3, 1976, and on February 28, 1986 and such entering into force on January 23, 1987
respectively. .
17. That on September 5, 2006, Lorriane Fe Igot (Alimaong Solad Sal- ing) filed an affidavit of
6
complaint to the Council of Elders allegedly she was raped by Ha Datu Tawahig (Roderick
Sumatra), Tribal Chieftain Higaonon Tribe, Grand Chief and National Chairman of Supreme
Council of Datus-Alimaong.7 Immediately the Dadantulan Tribal Court was formed, and investigation
and hearing were conducted. And on Jan. 3, 2007 a Resolution8 was passed, dismissing the case.

__________________
6
Annex “C” – Hand written Complaint of Alimaong Solad Sal-ing
(Lorriane Fe Igot) dated September 5, 2006
7
Annex “D”- Accreditation from Office for Southern Cultural
Communities (OSCC) dated July 4, 1997.

Annex “D1” - Accreditation from National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

(NCIP) dated August 3, 1998.

Annex “D2”- Accreditation from National Youth Commission (NYC)

dated September 8, 2000

Annex “D3”- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Registration dated

Dec. 23, 1997

Annex “ D4”- Office for Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) Order

dated Oct. 1, 1997 , implementing AO-215 Annex “D5”- Administrative Order 215 dated April 25, 1991
8
Annex “E”- Dadantulan Tribal Court Resolution dated Jan. 3, 2007

18. That on November 14, 2006, the complainant filed the same case9 to the City Prosecutor of Cebu
City and the fiscal was informed that the case was decided by the Dadantulan Tribal Court on Jan
3, 2007 and a Resolution was issued by the Dadantulan wherein the Fiscal was given a copy.
The act of the complainant is considered forum shopping.
19. That on April 4, 2007 the Cebu City Prosecutor-I Lineth S. Lapinid issued Resolution10 in favor of
the complainant. And the RTC-12 Cebu City Judge Estela Alma Singco issued an order 11 for
warrant of arrest for the accused in a case known as CBU-81130.

20. That on July 2, 2013 Ha Datu Tawahig (Roderick D. Sumatra) on his way to Valencia
12
Bukidnon to officiate Tribal Wedding being the Grand National Baylan (Priest) together with other
Datus and Baes, was arrested in Malaybalay City. Thereby suffering from great shame,
humiliation and trauma in front of his Datus and Baes and the Cultural Communities.

In customary, Grand Chief, Elders and tribal leaders are immune from
suit.“The Datu came to be regarded as God’s Vicegerent. His power was sacred and those
who would do him harm risked incurring God’s wrath and terrible punishment here and
hereafter”13. Spiritual activities like rituals, tribal baptism, tribal weddings,
spiritual healing (animism), spiritual ceremonies, settlement of all kinds of disputes
were all paralyzed due to the absence of the Grand Chief, Ha Datu Tawahig who has been
imprisoned since July 2, 2013.

That as a senior citizen, he had been in a periodic check up 14 through our

customary way through spiritual and herbal medicine not hospital medicine. That his
continued detention constitutes serious danger to his health or life.

21. That on August 29, 2013 Judge Estela Alma A. Singco ruled out that R.A 8371 is for settlement of
dispute that involves ancestral domain only.15
_________________

9
Annex “F”- Computerized Complaint Affidavit of Alimaong Solad Sal- ing
(Lorriane Fe Igot) dated November 14, 2006.

10
Annex “G” – Resolution of the Prosecutor dated April 4, 2007.

11
Annex “H”- Court Order for warrant of arrest dated Sept. 13, 2007

12
Annex “I”- National Statistics Office( NSO) Certificate of Registration of
Authority to Solemnize Marriage “Roderick D. Sumatra” Apo Amay Tawahig- Grand National Baylan

13
(Salceby, 1913:18)
14
Annex “J” –Certification from NCIP region 10 on periodic check up of Ha Datu
Tawahig (Roderick D. Sumatra)

15
Annex “K”- Court Order dated August 29, 2013

22. Because of delays and non-availability of lawyers equipped with knowledge of customary laws
and practices, the case dragged for more than two (2) years. Our Tribal Customary Counsel, Ha
Datu Bontito Leon Kilat (Vicente B. Gonzales, Jr.), a graduate of Bachelor of Laws* manifested
therefore. As a tribal chieftain of Higaonon Tribe and a member of the Indigenous Cultural
Communities, he is considered a party to the case, under the concept of customary law. But on
June 5, 2015 and September 11, 2015 he was ordered to seek authority from the Supreme Court to defend
as counsel of the accused. Should it be that the question of the validity of the court’s
jurisdiction must be resolved first, before the question of the validity of the counsel.

GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION

I . THE HONORABLE CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR-I LINETH LAPINID, CEBU CITY

PROSECUTO-II FERNANDO GUBALANE AND CEBU CITY PROSECUTOR NICOLAS
SELLON COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN THEY FAILED TO COMPLY THE MOA BETWEEN
DOJ AND NCIP AND CONCLUDING THAT SEC 15, AND SEC 65 OF R.A. 8371 ARE NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE CASE.

23. The oldest known written body of laws was the Maragtas Code by Datu Sumakwel at about
16
1250A.D. Other old codes are the Muslim 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 relations and
adoption. Whenever disputes arose, these were decided peacefully through a court composed
by chieftain as “Judge” and the barangay elders as “Jury”. Conflicts arising between subjects of
different barangays were resolved by arbitration in which a board composed of elders from
neutral barangays acted as arbiters.17
______________

* Credentials of Ha Datu Bontito Leon Kilat, attached as Annexes “L & L1”

16
Amelia Alonzo, The History of the Judicial System in the Philippines Indigenous Era Prior to 1565,
unpublished work submitted as entry to the Centennial Essay-Writing Contest sponsored by the National Centennial
Commission and the Supreme Court in 1997.

(Isagani Cruz et al vs. Secretary of DENR et al, 347 SCRA 128 page 180)

17
Agoncillo, supra, at 42
(Isagani Cruz et al vs. Secretary of DENR et al, 347 SCRA 128 page 181)

24. That under Supreme Court Circular No. 14-93, July 15, 1993 “ “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”18

25. That under Sec. 15 of R.A. 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.”19

26. That under Sec. 65 of R.A. 8371 provides. “Primacy of Customary Laws and Practices. —
When disputes involve Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples,
customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute.”20

27. Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a government to regulate, conduct and to enforce those
regulations through a court system. Generally speaking, jurisdiction is usually tied to territory. The
state governments possess the ability to prosecute an offender if any significant principle is further
illustrated by the fact that criminal cases are entitled something along the lines of “the People versus
the Defendant” or “the State versus the Defendant”; the government brings the prosecution because
the defendant’s conduct is said to violate community norms. This territorial approach is not,
however, the approach used with respect to criminal jurisdiction under

customary law. The indigenous cultural community is centered primarily on the identity of the
people involved in crime (both the ________________

18
Part II, para 3, Supreme Court Circular No. 14-93

19
Section 15, R.A. 8371

20
Section 65, R.A. 8371

victim and the perpetrator), and not only on the place where the conduct occurred.

Thus:
 a.) The tribal government possess inherent criminal jurisdication over all Indigenous Peoples
(IPs) in the Indigenous Cultural Communities.(ICCs)

b.) The state government has exclusive jurisdiction over all non-indigenous people only crimes
(non-IP against non-IP or non-IP victimless)

28. 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.

29. 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” 21

The role of the prosecutor to observe proper coordination with the NCIP legal officers was a
missing link and therefore a failure of his/her duty in complying the Memorandum of Agreement
between DOJ and NCIP.

30. That under Section 4 of R.A. 8371 “ Concept of Ancestral Lands/Domains. — Ancestral
lands/domains shall include such concepts of territories which cover NOT ONLY the physical
environment but the total environment including the spiritual and cultural bonds to the
areas which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy and use and to which they have claims of
ownership.”22

________________________
21
Memorandum of agreement between DOJ and NCIP of 2005, Attached as Annex “ M”
22
Section 4, R.A. 8371

II. THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR ERNESTO E. NARIDO, JR.

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN HE DISCRIMINATED THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES EMPHASIZING THE CHAPTER III SECTION 7 OF R.A. 8371 TO BE THE ONLY
RIGHTS THAT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES POSSESS, CONCLUDING THAT SEC 15, AND
SEC 65 OF R.A. 8371 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE CBU-81130.*
31. Chapter III section 7 of R.A 8371, “Rights to Ancestral Domains. —The rights of ownership and
possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected.” 23

32. He did not mention about the Chapter IV of R.A 8371, “Rights to Self Governance”

a.) SECTION 13. Self-Governance- “The State recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to
self-governance and self- determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and
institutions. Consequently, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.” 24

b.) 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.”25

c.) SECTION 20 Means for Development/Empowerment of ICCs/IPs. — “The Government

shall establish the means for the full development/empowerment of the ICCs/IPs own institutions
and initiatives and, where necessary, provide the resources needed therefor.”26

______________________
* Annex “N”-Opposition/Comment of ACP Ernesto E. Narido, Jr.

23
Section 7, Chapter III of R.A. 8371

24
Section 13, Chapter IV of R.A 8371

25
Section 15, Chapter IV of R.A 8371

26
Section 20, Chapter IV of R.A 8371

III. THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH-12 CEBU CITY
JUDGE ESTELA ALMA A. SINGCO COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN SHE FAILED TO SEE
OTHER RELATED LAWS CONCERNING CASES INVOLVING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES,
THEREBY NOT RECOGNIZING AND RESPECTING THE DADANTULAN TRIBAL COURT
AND ITS JURY, AS AN ESTABLISHED INSTITUTION SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL.
33. That under Rule IV Part 1, sec 1 para B & para C of the IRR of R.A. 8371 provides,27

b) The indigenous structures, systems, and institutions are not supplanted by other forms of
non-indigenous governance; and/ or.

c) Mechanisms that allow the interfacing of indigenous systems of governance with the
national systems are established.

34. 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
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. 28

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. 29
The written laws were those that the chieftain and his elders promulgated from time to time as the
necessity arose. 30 The oldest known written body of laws was the Maragtas Code by Datu
Sumakwel at about 1250A.D. Other

__________________
27
Rule IV Part 1, sec 1 par B & para C of the IRR of R.A. 8371

28
Agoncillo, supra, 40-41

29
Rafael Iriarte, History of the Judicial System, the Philippines Indigenous Era Prior to 1565, unpublished work
submitted as entry to the Centennial Essay-Writing Contest sponsored by the National Centennial Commission and the
Supreme Court in 1997, p. 103 citing Perfecto V. Fernandez, Custom Laws in Pre-Conquest Philippines, UP Law Center p.
10 [1976]

30
Agoncillo, supra, at 41

old codes are the Muslim Code of Luwaran and the Principal Code of Sulu.31 .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
adoption.32
35. That in Isagani Cruz et al vs. Secretary of DENR et al 347 SCRA 128 pages 240 and 241
stated that:

The 1987 Philippine Constitution formally recognizes the existence of ICCs/IPs and
declares as a State Policy the promotion of their rights within the framework of national unity and
development.33 The IPRA amalgamates the Philippine category of IPs with the international category of
IPs,34 and is heavily influenced by both the international Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169
and the United Nations (UN) Draft Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. 35

ILO Convention No. 169 is entitled the “Convention Concerning Indigenous and
Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries 36 and was adopted on June 27, 1989. It is based on the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and many other
international instruments on the prevention of discrimination.37 ILO Convention No. 169
revised the “Convention Concerning the Protection and Integration of the Indigenous and other Tribal

_____________________

31
Amelia Alonzo, The History of the Judicial System in the Philippines Indigenous Era Prior to 1565,
unpublished work submitted as entry to the Centennial Essay-Writing Contest sponsored by the National
Centennial Commission and the Supreme Court in 1997.

32
Agoncillo, supra, at 42

33
Section 22, article II, 1987 Consitution

34
Interpellation of Senator Flavier on S.B No. 1728, Deliberation on second reading, November 20, 1996, p 20

35
Guide to R.A. 8371, Coalition for IPs Rights and Ancestral Domains, the International Labor Organiztion,
and the ILO- Bilance –Asia Dep’t p. 3 [1999]

36
Also refered to as the “Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989”

37
See introduction to ILO Convention No. 169, par. 4
 and Semi-Tribal Populations in the Independent Countries” (ILO 107) passed on June 26,
1957. Developments in international law made it appropriate to adopt new international
standards on indigenous peoples “with a view to removing the assimilationist orientation
of the earlier standards,” and recognizing the aspirations of these peoples to exercise control
38
over their own institutions, way of life and economic development.

36. That under the United Nations International Labor Organization UN-ILO Convention No 169
article 2, 8, 9, & 10, an Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989. 39

Article 2

1. Governments shall have the responsibility for developing, with the participation of the
peoples concerned, coordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of these peoples and to
guarantee respect for their integrity.

(a) ensuring that members of these peoples benefit on an equal footing from the rights and
opportunities which national laws and regulations grant to other members of the population;

(b) promoting the full realization of the social, economic and cultural rights of these peoples
with respect for their social and cultural identity, their customs and traditions and their institutions;

(c) assisting the members of the peoples concerned to eliminate socio-economic gaps that may
exist between indigenous and other members of the national community, in a manner compatible with
their aspirations and ways of life.

Article 8

1. In applying national laws and regulations to the peoples concerned, due regard shall be
had to their customs or customary laws.

______________________
38
Id., Pars 5 and 6

39
Article 2, 8, 9, 10 of United Nations International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169 available online @
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P1210 0_INSTRUMENT_ID:312314
 2. These peoples shall have the right to retain their own customs and institutions, where
these are not incompatible with fundamental rights defined by the national legal system and with
internationally recognized human rights. Procedures shall be established, whenever
necessary, to resolve conflicts which may arise in the application of this principle.

3. The application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not prevent members of these
peoples from exercising the rights granted to all citizens and from assuming the corresponding
duties.

Article 9

1. To the extent compatible with the national legal system and internationally recognized
human rights, the methods customarily practiced by the peoples concerned for dealing with
offences committed by their members shall be respected.

2. The customs of these peoples in regard to penal matters shall be taken into consideration
by the authorities and courts dealing with such-cases.

Article 10

1. In imposing penalties laid down by general law on members of these peoples account shall
be taken of their economic, social and cultural characteristics.

2. Preference shall be given to methods of punishment other than confinement in prison.40

37. In Guatemala Criminal Case where UN –ILO convention 169 article 2, 8, 9, & 10 were
implemented. “The judge dismissed the case against the three defendants, because it was demonstrated
that they had been tried by the authorities of the Indigenous Community, which had
punished those responsible. The judge indicated that the recognition of the legal validity of the
punishment levied by the Indigenous Community precluded the possibility of

________________________

40
par. 2, Article 10 of UN-ILO 169
 applying new criminal sanctions on those responsible, as that would violate the principle of Non Bis
In Idem (double Jeopardy). The ruling was made based on constitutional requirements, and quotes

extensively the applicable provisions from ILO Convention no. 169” 41

Relevant considerations of the Court

“As such, the judge presiding over the court proceedings, upon analyzing articles 46, 58 and 66
of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala as a legal basis for the applicability of indigenous
law, concluded that these guarantee the free exercise of the rights enshrined in these articles and
imply the right of every citizen to be tried according to their own legal system within the
framework of their cultural identity, distinct from that which the state has defined as official.
This implies respect for the legitimate

application of indigenous law within the constitutional framework of the Guatemalan State. In
analyzing these articles, it is clear that the State has the obligation to recognize the rights and
the existence of the “peoples” or Indigenous Communities in its legal structure. The
constitutional provisions go further by putting forth that the State shall promote their way of life and
social organization, as well as customs, dress and language. The constitutional mandate of article
66 is developed and made applicable by means of the promotion that the State, through the
agencies and institutions that make it up, is obliged to carry out, which implies the explicit
commitment to act in accordance with the tenets of the Constitution…”42

“…Since it is impossible to issue a final judgment, be it conviction or an acquittal in the case,

the conclusion, given this impossibility to bring the matter to trial, which is in itself objective
grounds for a stay of proceedings of the criminal action, is to declare in the present case that the
Prosecuting body has a lack capacity to bring the criminal and public action due to lack of exclusive
jurisdiction in the action, since it was entirely managed by the Chiyax community and in
application of their indigenous law (…)”43

___________________

41
Annex “O” Summary of the Facts of the case, Application of ILO Convention No. 169 By Domestic and International
Courts in Latin America
42
Relevant Consideration of the Court Application of Convention No. 169 in Guatemala : Domestic and
International Courts in Latin America
43 Id, para 3

38. Message from the Chairman of National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), “The
greatest accolade for the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) is their
triumph over their struggle for empowerment and self governance…Aside from being rich in
culture, tradition and practices, we have seen that many conflicts involving Indigenous Peoples
(Ips) and non-IPs were resolved out of court by the IP elders and leaders using customary law.
The compilation of case studies done by NCIP lawyers should lead to the recognition of IP
traditional mechanisms as alternative dispute resolution mechanisms by the Supreme Court.
Peace and order had been achieved in many local communities through the application and
enforcement of customary laws.” 44

39. That in 1996, a murder case between parties belonging to Tinggulan Tribe was filed in Court by the
police, but because of the desire of the Elders by reason of kinship, Court brought back the case
to the elders for settlement. “The main purpose of settling all kinds of criminal cases like
murder or rape is to reintegrate the accused into the community and not to be traumatized by the
crime committed”.45

40. Criminal Case No. 1527 for Direct Assault, filed at the Municipal Trial Court of Magpet,
Cotabato, where both the complainant and the accused belong to the same cultural tribal
community, the Honorable Judge forwarded the records to the Office of the Indigenous
46
Peoples/Cultural Communities pursuant to section 15 of R.A. 8371.

41. In the case of CBU-81130, RTC-12 Cebu City under Honorable Judge Estela Alma Singco is not
a competent court to settle this dispute as both parties are members of the same Higaonon Tribe,
because the court Judge does not know the Customs and Traditions of these Indigenous Peoples.

_______________

44
NCIP Chairman Atty. Roque N. Agton, Jr.DISPUTE SETTLEMENT THROUGH PHILIPPINE
CUSTOMARY LAW: a compilation

45
Annex “P”page 2-5 , DISPUTE SETTLEMENT THROUGH PHILIPPINE CUSTOMARY LAW: a compilation
by NCIP Chairman Atty. Roque N. Agton, Jr.
 46
Annex “Q “- Resolution, Magpet Cotabato Municipal Trial Court

The Philippines has the obligation to protect

Petitioner from violations of cultural and
human rights as a State party to the Interna-
tional Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights and International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights

42. Under the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law which therefore form part of the law of the land. It is axiomatic that all treaties are
binding on the State party ratifying the same and must be performed by them in good faith.47

43. As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Philippines has
bound itself to fulfill the obligations under the Covenant. The relevant provision reads: 48

Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present
Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each state party
to the present covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its
constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt
such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the
present Covenant.

3. Each State party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated
shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity.
_________________

47
Article 26, Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties

48
Article II, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by
competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority
provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted

44. In particular, the Philippines bound itself to protect various human rights under the Covenant,
mainly:

Article 10

1. All person deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person.49

2.
(a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted
persons and shall be subject to

separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted person;50

Article 7

“No one shall be subjected to torture51 or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
xxx xxx”

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such ground
and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.52
45. Under Article 1 of ICESCR “ 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. ”53

___________________
49
Article 10 ICCPR

50
Id

51
definition of torture, Article 1, United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
52 Article 9 ICCPR

53
article 1 of ICESCR

46. The Philippines must take steps to enforce its treaty obligations and make reparations for the breach
of these obligations, and in doing so comply with its treaty obligations under the ICESCR signed and
duly ratified by the Philippines, if it is to move forward in protecting these cherished rights that are
essential to democracy, progress and the basic values of humanity.

There must be a review and reauthorization of the national laws such as the revised penal
code, rules of court, and the new civil code in the application of the cultural rights. So that there
will be an access to justice on the part of the cultural rights of the Indigenous Peoples, under
the rules of court and the new civil code.

Violence Against Women Act VAWA.

VAWA was first passed in 1994. It provided funding for the investigation and prosecution of
violent crimes against women and established the office on Violence against Women(OVAW) in the
Department of Justice (DOJ). The act included automatic expiration dates. It has been reauthorized in
2000, 2005, and 2013. In 2005 the re- authorizations included a specific tribal title, Title IX.
The Title IX section of VAWA 2013 deals with anumber of topics, such as grants,
coalitions, Alaska-specific issues, tribal protection orders, and tribal jurisdiction. This
resource focuses on Section 904, Tribal Jurisdiction over Crimes of Domestic Violence.54

The national legislated laws remains the same despite the ratification of the ICESCR
which should amend such laws to fully conform with the covenant.
The Philippines, being in breach of an
international obligation is required to
make reparations and redress, paying
damages to compensate for the injury.

47. The failure of the Philippines to observe its obligations to prevent mental torture and not to
commit torture under the covenant gives rise to the commission of an internationally wrongful act
which is a breach of treaty. The acts of the public respondents are considered acts of state.

_______________________

54
Tribal Legal Code Resource: Tribal Laws Implementing TLOA and VAWA 2013 available online @

http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/TLOA-VAWA-Guide.htm

48. Under customary international law, it has stated that:

“ The conduct of any state organ shall be considered an act of that state under
international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, `
whatever positions it holds in the organization of the state, and whatever its character as an
organ of the Central Government or territorial unit of the state.”55

Additionally, it has also been stated that:

“The conduct of an organ of a state or of a person or entity empowered to

exercise elements of governmental authority shall be considered an act of the state under
international law if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity, even if it exceeds its
authority or contravenes instructions”56

The embodiment of this principle of reparation is stated in the following manner.

“The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation

for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act”57

49. The injury that requires reparation may also be moral damage suffered by individuals such as
individual pain and suffering. Therefore in this case would be the suffering and pain, stress, mental
 torture inflicted on Ha Datu Tawahig (Roderick D. Sumatra) mentally, materially and spirituality
which will require reparation in the form of compensation.

The killings of Tribal Chieftains are considered breach of international law because the State
failed to protect its constituents including the Indigenous Cultural Communities and its Tribal Leaders.58

50. Thus states are also responsible for acts committed within apparent or general scope of its
authority. Additionally, “the State also bears international responsibility by its officials or its organs
which are delictual according to international law, regardless of whether the

_________________
55 Article 4(1) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally wrongful Acts as adopted by
International Law Commission

56
Id
57 Article 31(1) Articles on State Responsibility

58 article about the slain Datu Bahani (Joel R. Biong), available at www.alimaong-scoda.org also attached as Annex
“R”

official organ has acted within the limits of his competency or has exceeded those limits…”59

51.As a consequence of the commission of an internationally wrongful act, the Philippines is obliged to
make reparation. Because restitution is not possible, there may be compensation with respect to the
damage. The reparation “must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal
act…” 60

52. For state and government’s moto proprio or at its own instance, initiate processes and remedies
for redress, restitution, compensation and conveyance in order to correct historical wrongs

53. As an organ of the state, the Honorable Supreme Court thus may take measures in the form
specific orders so that the cultural rights is not rendered illusory. Mandamus is the only available
remedy to obtain such implementation given that the Philippines enacted legislation
(specific statutes) or administrative measures to ensure that the victims of cultural rights
violations are redressed in the form of compensation and that such are enforceable, effective and offer a
realistic chance of compensation.

____________________________

59 MerlinMagallona, Fundamentals of Public International Law, p. 65 citing Brownlie, Principles of Public

International Law, 1980, p.437 citing the President of the Franco-Mexican Claims Commission;

60 41 Chorzow Factory Case, Permanent International Court of Justice (PCIJ) Series A, No. 17, 1928, p.47;
Broniowski v. Poland (Grand Chamber) (App no. 31443/96) ECHR 22 June 2004 [hereinafterthe Broniowski case],
para. 189; Article 35 on the Articles of State Responsibility provides exceptions to the obligation to provide
restitution, that is, to the extent that it is not strictly possible, such as in torture cases which the wrongful acts cannot be
undone, such as in this case here- thus compensation and satisfaction apply. See also Basic Principles and Guidelines on the
Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 60/147 of
16 December 2005.

54. Under Article 22, ICESCR - The economic and social council may bring to the attention of other
organs of the united nations, their subsidiary organs and specialized agencies concerned with
furnishing technical assistance. Any matters arising out of the reports referred to in this part of
the present covenant which may assist such bodies in deciding, each within its field of
competencies, on the advisability of international measures likely to contribute to the effective
61
progressive implementation of the present covenant.

54. Under Article 36 of the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous
Peoples provides, “Indigenous Peoples have the rights to the recognition, observance and
enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their
successors, according to their original spirit and intent, and to have States honour and respect such
treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. Conflicts and disputes which cannot
 otherwise be settled should submitted to the competent international bodies agreed to by all parties
concerned.”62

Petitioner has established the requisites for

the issuance of a writ of mandamus

55. Under Rules of Court, when an officers or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, and there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person may file a verified
petition alleging the facts with certainty and praying that the judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent, to do the act required to be done.63

56. Thus in a last effort to obtain the relief, Petitioner is thus constrained to file this
petition for mandamus under Rule 65.

______________

61
Article 22, ICESCR
62 Article 36, United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights Of Indigenous Peoples

63 See Rule 65, Section 3, Rules of Court

PRAYERS FOR RELIEFS

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to:

• ISSUE a writ of preliminary injunction and/or preliminary mandatory injunction to defer the
proceedings of the lower court to expedite the petition for mandamus.

• ORDER, by way of mandamus, to uphold and respect the Dadantulan Tribal Court Decision as
implementation of the Article II, Section 2 and Section 22 of the Constitution, R.A. 8371
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, the International Covenant on Economic Social and
Cultural Rights ICESCR
 thereby releasing the Petitioner from jail to stop the continued arbitrary detention.

• Respondents take steps to ensure that the Petitioner is paid and given reparation in the amount
sufficient to compensate him the mental torture and continued arbitrary detention under the penal
system

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Cebu City for Manila, October 19, 2015.

HA DATU BONTITO LEON KILAT

(Vicente B. Gonzales, Jr.)
Tribal Chieftain, Higaonon Tribe
Tribal Customary Counsel of the Accused

ANNEXES

3Annex
“A”- MOTION TO RELEASE THE INDGENOUS PERSON DUE
TO PREVENTIVE DESCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO
INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION (ILO)
CONVENTION 169
4Annex
“B” - Court Order dated June 5, 2015

Annex “B1”- Court Order dated September 11, 2015

6
Annex “C” – Hand written Complaint of Alimaong Solad Sal- ing (Lorriane Fe
Igot) dated September 5, 2006
7
Annex “D”- Accreditation from Office for Southern Cultural Communities
(OSCC) dated July 4, 1997.

Annex “D1”- Accreditation from National Commission on Indigenous

Peoples (NCIP) dated August 3, 1998.

Annex “D2”- Accreditation from National Youth Commission (NYC) dated

September 8, 2000

Annex “D3”- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Registration

dated Dec. 23, 1997

Annex “ D4” - Office for Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) Order

dated Oct.1,1997 ,implementing AO-215

Annex “D5”- Administrative Order 215 dated April 25, 1991

8Annex
“E”- Dadantulan Tribal Court Resolution dated Jan. 3, 2007
9Annex “F”- Computerized Complaint Affidavit of Alimaong Solad Sal- ing (Lorriane Fe
Igot) dated November 14, 2006.
10Annex “G”- Resolution of the Prosecutor dated April 4, 2007.

11Annex
“H”- Court Order for warrant of arrest dated Sept. 13, 2007

12Annex
“I”- National Statistics Office( NSO) Certificate of Registration of Authority to
Solemnize Marriage “Roderick D. Sumatra” Apo Amay Tawahig- Grand
National Baylan
14Annex “J”-Certification from NCIP region 10 on periodic check up of Ha Datu
Tawahig (Roderick D. Sumatra)
15Annex “K”- Court Order dated August 29, 2013

*Annexes “L & L1”Credentials of Ha Datu Bontito Leon Kilat

21Annex
“ M”-Memorandum of agreement between DOJ and NCIP of 2005,

*Annex “N”-Opposition/Comment of ACP Ernesto E. Narido, Jr.

 Annex “O” Summary of the Facts of the case, Application of UN-ILO
41
Convention No.
169

Annex “P”- page 2-5 of DISPUTE SETTLEMENT THROUGH

45
PHILIPPINE
CUSTOMARY LAW: a compilation by NCIP Chairman Atty. Roque N. Agton, Jr.
46
Annex “Q “- Resolution, Magpet Cotabato Municipal Trial Court

Annex “R”-article about the slain Datu Bahani (Joel R. Biong), also
58
available at
www.alimaong-scoda.org

COPY FURNISHED BY PERSONAL SERVICE

HON. LINETH LAPINID

Cebu City Prosecutor-I

Public Respondent

Ground floor Fernan Hall of Justice,

M Velez Street, Capitol Compound,

Cebu City, 6000 Cebu,

HON. FERNANDO GUBALANE

Cebu City Prosecutor-II

Public Respondent

Ground floor Fernan Hall of Justice,

M Velez Street, Capitol Compound,

Cebu City, 6000 Cebu,

HON. NICOLAS SELLON

Cebu City Prosecutor

Public Respondent

Ground floor Fernan Hall of Justice,

M Velez Street, Capitol Compound,

Cebu City, 6000 Cebu,

HON. ERNESTO E. NARIDO, JR.

Asst. City Prosecutor

Public Respondent

Ground floor Fernan Hall of Justice,

M Velez Street, Capitol Compound,

Cebu City, 6000 Cebu,

HON. JUDGE ESTELA ALMA A. SINGCO

Regional Trial Court, Branch-12 Cebu City

Public Respondent
3rd floor Quimonda IT Center, Don Sergio Osmena,

North Reclamation Area, Cebu City,

 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, HA DATU TAWAHIG (Roderick D. Sumatra), Tribal Chieftain, Higaonon Tribe, of legal age,
and resident of 0214 Nivel Hills Busay Cebu City, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law,
hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above captioned case;

2. I caused the preparation of the Petition, have read the same and certify that the allegations therein are
true and correct based on my personal knowledge and based on authentic records.

3. I certify that I have not therefore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; and if
I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5)
days therefrom.

HA DATU TAWAHIG

(Roderick D.Sumatra)
Tribal Chieftain, Higaonon Tribe

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of __________ 2015 at _________________
affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No.____________________ issued on
________________ 2015 at______________ City.
Doc. No. :
Page No. :
Book No. :
Series of 2015