5. Remedies appropriate to IP cultures are hindered by the State when IPs are forced to litigate in adversarial courts of justice The quasi-judicial functions of the NCIP, specifically the jurisdiction over Non-IP litigants has been clarified and limited by the Supreme Court in the case of Lim vs. Gamosa, G.R. No. 193964, December 02, 2015 which upheld Unduran et al. v. Aberasturi et al. where it was ruled that Section 66 of the IPRA does not endow the NCIP with primary and/or exclusive and original jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs. Based on the qualifying proviso, the Supreme Court held that the NCIP's jurisdiction over such claims and disputes occur only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP. Since two of the defendants therein were not IPs/ICCs, the regular courts had jurisdiction over the complaint in the case. Given this, the IPs are compelled to litigate before regular courts for violation of their MoAs with Non-IPs. Litigation is culturally, financially and geographically prohibitive for the IPs. The adversarial nature of the litigation process is a totally alien concept to the IPs being familiar only with the dispute resolutions of customary law. The recommendations seek to provide arbitration services for IPs so they may settle disputes with non-IP entities in a manner that is more accessible and culturally appropriate than adversarial and highly technical litigation. 6. Police power and law enforcement for customary law decisions and domains protection as a measure of IP empowerment is not recognized and supported by the State. There is no provision in the IPRA or its implementing rules on customary law enforcement through traditional enforcers who are inherent in the societal structure of every tribal society Enforcement is intrinsic in every legal regime, i.e., any law requires enforcement for its proper implementation. IPRA recognition of customary law is clear in Sec. 15, IPRA: “The ICCs/IPs shall have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions and peace building processes or mechanisms and other customary laws and practices within their respective communities as may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights.” IPs have reported frustration in enforcement of their customary laws within the AD especially with non-IPs. They report illegal logging and no official actions are taken 30. In the Haran public hearing 30 Palawan City CHR IP National Inquiry Report Page | 18