The national inquiry comprises several methodologies such as desk research, review of existing records, individual case conferences, submission and evaluation of written inputs, individual key informant interviews, focus group discussions, workshops, community dialogues, immersions, ocular inspections and follow-up sessions. Conduct of public hearings is a very important part of the whole inquiry process, albeit it is not by itself the national inquiry. In addition, while originally developed as a mechanism to inquire on systemic human rights violations, the national inquiry also included workshop sessions to identify the specific solutions to the problems and to plan for their implementation. The invited resources persons, particularly the complainants, were also asked to provide recommendations, while good practices were shared and recognized. Being a consensusbuilding mechanism, the national inquiry is truly a venue for both the rights-holders and the dutybearers to engage in a partnership to resolve the issues. While based mostly on the results of the national inquiry, cited in this report are not just data and information from the actual testimonies and submitted documentations of resource persons but also other sources to ensure rigors of analysis. III. The Human Rights Based Perspective Indigenous Peoples are imbued with both collective and individual rights. The indivisibility of the collective require a different approach in the protection and promotion of these rights. IPs cannot be treated as a sector of society without running afoul of their political rights to selfgovernance and self-determination. Government must realize that they are dealing with a political unit with territorial jurisdiction and boundaries much like a local government unit in the municipal or provincial or even regional levels. 6 Neither is there homogeneity among the various tribes. Therefore all duty bearers must be ever aware of the political and collective nature of IP rights as well as the inherent diversity between the rights bearers and their domains. The caveat is for government and civil society both to anchor themselves firmly on the beneficiaries who are peculiar in that they are site-specific. The exercise of the rights to self-determination and selfgovernance within ancestral domains will vary from site to site and one program for all may not have the same impact due to many attending factors. By the term “peoples” under international law, there arises inalienable collective rights of nations to self-governance and self-determination, territory and citizenship. Thus, IPs must always be approached through IP designated “diplomatic” channels. Their political processes of decisionmaking should be respected and not viewed as inferior to our western-shaped democracies. They are not passive target beneficiaries of government programs, they are rights-bearers who have dominion of large tracts of land they lay claim to as private lands. 6 The Matigsalug CADT, one of the largest in the country spanning an area in excess of 500,000 hectares, is found in 3 provinces of Mindanao, namely Davao, Bukidnon and parts of Cagayan de Oro. Page | 7