IP rights are reduced to mere lip service as demonstrated by the string budget given to the NCIP for delineation of more domains. Lip service adherence to IP rights is demonstrated by the absence of budget appropriations to pursue domain sustainability and development. The State duty bearers cannot stop at mere recognition of IP collective rights through delineation and issuance of certificates of domain titles, the State duty bearer must provide the rights holders, the means as well as the mechanisms and remedies for the exercise of their collective rights. The UNDRIP provides in Article 8 par. (2): States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for: (a) any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities; (b) any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources; (c) any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights; (d) any form of forced assimilation or integration; (e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination against them. As State duty bearers, the fulfilment of their public mandates require transparency, accountability, responsiveness, efficiency and good impact on the IPs. Moreover, it requires a process that respects their collective human rights. This process is recommended as the direct partnership between duty bearer agencies, civil society and the indigenous peoples and the forum for this process is through the IP Human Rights Observatory at the CHR. As for Non-State actors like civil society, their efforts can only be rewarded by more sharing as the CHR stands ready to police the executive in the proper implementation of their bureaucratized mandates among IPs. In addition, their technical expertise and experience in working among IP shall prove invaluable in FPIC processes refereed by the CHR in the multilevel partnership mechanism envisioned here. Some of the advantages that the CHR; uniquely positioned as an independent constitutional commission and organized in all regions of the country with a mandate for protecting and promoting IP rights, can provide include: a) The sharing of data, consistent with the freedom of information Executive Order Number 2 Series of 2016 of this administration b) The possibility of adopting common indicators and tools to analyze data; the cost-efficiency that will result from avoiding duplication of efforts and public spending along the lines of monitoring and evaluation c) The facility of inter-agency and civil society coordination for greater accountability and responsiveness to IP concerns The recommendations contained in the final section of this Report proposes a three (3)-layer monitoring mechanism: CHR-national government agencies, CHR-civil society and CHR-IPS as working partnerships convened by the IP Human Observatory to: Page | 10