Q&A WORKSHOP III: QUESTION AND ANSWER, COMMENT, SUGGESTION, AND CLARIFICATION. Facilitated by: Atty. Gemma F. Parojinog Atty. Torres, CHR: How do you envision the IP observatory in being more “sector specific”” e.g. IP women, IP children, etc. Atty. Parojinog, CHR: Based on the discussion we did not identify the particular sector. We only talked of IP in general. In the 14 thematic concerns of the NCIP, there may be some cross-intersections. We should try to be focused on specific sectors however it is heavily dependent on data gathering, which is also one of the main issues. Atty. Torres, CHR: We therefore say that one value added of the IP observatory is data disaggregation. We will have IP recognition e.g. registration which should be culturally sensitive for the IP groups. Comm. Wandag, NCIP: The answer is the ethnography survey, which is not present in the Philippines. This will give us how many Indigenous People belong to men, women, children, etc. Atty. Torres, CHR: As part of our ways forward, it is good if CHR will also be invited along with the on-going discussion of NCIP about ethnicity. Comm. Wandag, NCIP: The ethnicity is 2020; maybe even earlier. I talked with Comm. Gwen if you are all ready to sit down with us we can talk of our ways forward. Everything that NCIP will do should emanate from En Banc Resolution. Dr. Basas, CHR: The observatory will also cover an in-depth study on IPs as Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). Atty. Parojinog, CHR: From the discussion earlier, one of the main issues is the registration of the IPs. They never die, born, got married, because you cannot get any data about them. We have to do it in accordance with the civil registration guideline and must conform to the cultural registration. Some has already been registered but changed their names and age, and therefore an issue of identity validation. These issues must be settled before the IP profiling and demographic survey. 96