communities. In particular, from January 1, 2009 to December 20, 2016, there are forty-eight (48) women IPs who are reportedly victims of human rights violations. 5. To illustrate the institution's work on issues related to conflict, peace and resolution for indigenous peoples, CHRP has condemned1 in 2015 the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Communist Party's New Peoples Army (NPA) who perpetrate numerous crimes against the Lumad communities in Mindanao, and urgently called for the cessation of such violations. From 2001 and September 2015, at least 35 cases of extrajudicial killings involving 59 members of the indigenous peoples’ community in Mindanao have been reported to CHRP for investigation. Of these, 10 cases were allegedly perpetrated by the AFP, while 8 cases were attributed to the NPA. It has also been reported that in 2015, approximately 8,090 IPs remain displaced2 in Mindanao due to the internal armed conflict, and the CHRP has closely worked with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to strengthen monitoring of internally displaced persons (IDP) in Mindanao. 6. CHRP's main activities to protect and promote IP rights are anchored on a domestic piece of legislation, i.e. the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (Republic Act No. 8371), aside from being guided by the UNDRIP. The IPRA antedates UNDRIP by ten years, since the former was enacted into law by the Philippine legislature on October 1997. One eminent legal commentator, Candelaria (2012), would argue that the UNDRIP enjoys strong moral weight due to the overwhelming support by countries and IPs organizations worldwide. For instance, it deals more explicitly and strongly with the issues of militarization of IPs’ lands, protection of traditional knowledge and the right to selfdetermination. However, the UNDRIP is not a legally binding instrument and it does not have a supervisory mechanism to monitor its implementation. On the other hand, Candelaria would say that as domestic instrument, IPRA is more detailed than the other two instruments (the other one being the ILO Convention No. 169), because it not only states the rights but also creates and organizes the institutions, such as the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the primary government agency that is in charge of the implementation. IPRA gives special emphasis on indigenous women, children, and youth. It also states that particular attention should be paid to the rights and special needs of the elderly and differently-abled IPs. IPRA also provides for IP rights during armed conflict, as well as penalties for violation of provisions related thereto. Under both ILO Convention No. 169 and IPRA, the government must implement their provisions, with the participation of the IPs, and coordinate all efforts of these peoples. Like the UNDRIP, IPRA emphasizes the mechanisms for redress of grievances in the event of violation of IP rights.3 7. However, what is more revealing is the fact that both IPRA and UNDRIP do not categorically mention the role of national human rights institutions in their respective implementation. Still, when the constitutionality and validity of the IPRA was assailed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, CHRP, on March 22, 1999, filed a Motion to Intervene and/or to Appear as Amicus Curiae. There, the CHRP strongly asserted that IPRA is an expression of the principle of parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and guarantee the rights of those who 1 Benitez, L. (Nov. 3, 2015) CHR condemns violations against Lumad communities. http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/mindanao/111488-chr-condemns-violations-lumad (accessed Dec. 19, 2016) Balagtas, A. & Yap D. (Nov. 3, 2015) AFP, NPA recruiting “Lumad” - CHR http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/736350/afpnpa-recruiting-lumad-chr. 2 UNHCR Displacement Dashboard – Mindanao, Philippines Forced Displacement Annual Report, 2015 http://unhcr.ph/_cms/wp-content/uploads/2015-Mindanao-Philippines-Forced-Displacement-Report_Final-HR3.pdf (accessed Dec. 19, 2016) 3 Candelaria, S. (2012) Comparative Analysis on the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) of the Philippines. International Labour Organization. -Manila: ILO