2. Methodology (a) Prim ary Review During the primary review a traditional legal research methodology was employed. When assessing domestic law in accordance with international standards, this methodology requires a two-stage process to first determine the standards and, second, to identify the domestic legal and institutional regime that would be assessed by reference to these standards. As the Philippine domestic system was to be reviewed according to standards established by international law, the sources of international law were first referenced. To determine these standards the highest sources of law were identified, then additional relevant but subordinate sources of law and other explanatory materials were collected to elaborate. This applied hierarchical methodology is particularly important in the field of housing rights, which are not well articulated at the highest level (treaties and conventions) in international law. After a determination of the standards established by international law, the review of Philippine law adopted a similar legal research methodology, where sources were collected and reviewed in a hierarchical fashion from Constitutive instruments, legislation, regulatory materials and jurisprudence. This research provided a basis for an analysis of Philippine de jure compliance with international law. (b) Second Review The purpose of the second review was to determine Philippine de facto compliance with international law in the field of evictions and resettlement, during which a human rights fact-finding methodology was employed. These fact-finding activities were undertaken in accordance with the Human Rights Fact-Finding Guidelines of the International Bar Association. 1 The fact-finding methodology preferences the collection of evidence from first-hand sources, rather than already existing studies or other secondary information, and will therefore provide more direct experience of government compliance with established standards. These fact-finding activities were undertaken as an evidence-gathering exercise. In the determination of activities, efforts were made to encourage participation from all concerned groups and stakeholders. Case study locations were selected to provide a snapshot of actual government performance during evictions and resettlement. To this end, sites were selected to offer a broad range of experiences in the context of housing, which included communities still located in informal settlements, communities in the process of negotiating resettlement, and communities that had already been resettled. The inherent limitation in using the fact-finding approach to gathering evidence is that it cannot provide a comprehensive picture of government compliance with established standards. The research team had insufficient resources to conduct additional case 1 International Bar Association, International Human Rights Fact-Finding Guidelines, 2009, available at <http://www.factfindingguidelines.org/guidelines.html>. xviii