determination, the recognition of the ‘ownership’ of IPs to their lands and domains and obligation to secure a Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) from IP communities for any development activity that may affect them. Henceforth, all laws, policies, and programs have to acknowledge, respect and comply with the above-mentioned principles. However, there have been loopholes that have been exploited by various interest groups to go around the FPIC requirements. Furthermore, there has been a difficulty in enforcing and implementing many of the progressive provisions of the IPRA mainly due to the unfamiliarity of many state actors along with CSO workers who are expected to advocate for the law and provide support to IP communities. Admittedly, there is a dearth of development workers who have the capacity to support IP communities and address their land issues. For years, CSO advocacy has mainly focused on agrarian reform issues and paid little attention to IP advocacy, which was left to a small community of CSOs who specialized in indigenous peoples’ rights. There is a need to build support among a broader community of CSOs and build their capacity to enable them to provide services to the IP sector. At the same time, the front-line implementors of government have not been able to facilitate the implementation of the IPRA and execute what is expected of them by the IP communities due to their unfamiliarity with the law. Many applications for ancestral domain titles face opposition from government agencies and local government units (LGUs) who deem the awarding of titles as a threat to their authority and jurisdiction. In other instances, the nature of the opposition is based on the mistaken belief that IP communities do not have the capacity to manage large tracts of lands; hence, applications for titles should be opposed as these may pose a threat to the conservation of critical natural resources. However, to its credit, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) has recently issued a Memorandum-Circular to all the attached agencies under its jurisdiction, which provides information and enjoins all to comply with the lawful mandate of the IPRA. The business sector, on the other hand, raises the loss of potential revenue as its basis for opposing the implementation of the progressive provisions of the IPRA. The mining industry has constantly raised the specter of the loss of revenue in areas that the IP communities consider as sacred and ritual areas and are thus declared as off limits to any form of disturbance. The need for a dialogue between the IP sector and the business sector is imperative. The antagonistic position against the rights of IPs is rooted in the lack of understanding and appreciation by the business sector of not only the IPRA but the very nature of the aspirations of the IP sector. The effectivity of IP leaders to advocate for the full implementation of the IPRA also needs to be enhanced. Nearly two decades since the enactment of the IPRA, many communities are still unaware of the bundle of rights that they are supposed to have and enjoy. Clearly, there is a need for a concerted effort among many actors to fully realize the mandate of the IPRA. But in order to push for the effective and full implementation of probably the most progressive and ‘pro-people law’ in the Philippines, many limitations and capacity gaps that remain among the concerned agencies and institutions need to be properly addressed. Lok Niti 105