That’s one of the hypotheses on why the Palawan tigers got extinct!

So Tabon man predated the Chinese in their habit of eating endangered animals!

but look at ipra, man. It’s a big hairy law with lots of big principles overthrown with the flick of flavier’s wrist! like the Regalian Doctrine. hehe.

I won’t have to challenge its constitutionality myself because when the SC renders its decision on the MOA-AD, I think it will take the position of Justice Vicente Mendoza, who recently made it clear that HOMELAND is far, far cry from ANCESTRAL DOMAIN.

They will clarify the limits of IPRA’s applicability to the MOA-AD.

I think it will have a major impact on the NEXT time IPRA is challenged. At least the most radical interpretation given by Puno to IPRA in Cruz v. DENR/NCIP will be modulated, perhaps “corrected” to a more reasonable, even acceptable range for those who see the SC decision on IPRA as being even more radical (and insane) than IPRA.

Remember, IPRA was used to create the MOA-AD, but with the promotion of “ancestral domain” to “quasi independent homeland”.

I predict the words “ultra vires” will be of particular importance in the coming decision.

If two wrongs don’t make a right, neither would three!

I happen to agree with you that the overthrow of Erap by Davide’s Supreme Court, and the salvation of Davide by that selfsame court which gave birth to the Mutant Monster of Initiation are all WRONG decisions waiting for a saner future court to reverse them in order to restore the debauched principles.

so you cannot justify yet a third major violation of the Constitution’s most basic principles on the basis of these first and second instances of juridical aberration.

At any time, the Supreme Court can reverse any ruling or decision that it rendered in the past.

That is how supreme it is, and how “unfinal” any Supreme Court ruling or decision truly is.

I think it is inaccurate to say that the Supreme Court is the “final” arbiter of any case. Only that any decision it makes can really only be “appealed” to the Supreme Court itself.

But what this line of argument always misses is that the Court itself is a continuing entity. It can change its mind about anything at any time.

In that sense I am a “neo platonist” when it comes to the Law. There is some Truth and Justice about any given case that stands above even the Supreme Court, which however is what we all agree must forever search for and authorize to describe that Truth and Justice for us reasonable men.

In the scientific spirit, I see the Law itself as a series of successive approximations to that Truth and Justice in the Sky.