12.1. The state does not provide adequate resources to protect and promote the four bundles of IP rights as stated in the IPRA, which is a form of discrimination. 12.2. The state does not exert efforts to preserve indigenous culture, particularly the institutionalization, codification, and enforcement of indigenous customary laws and traditions, particularly on ancestral domain, collective ownership and native title. 12.3. The state does not have clear plans to respond to the demands of the indigenous peoples of Mindanao, such as the Lumads, for justice, peace and development, in spite of the government's on going peace process with the different revolutionary groups like the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)-New Peoples Army (NPA)-National Democratic Front (NDF); Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and others. The IPs point out that they remain to be victims of armed conflicts, development aggression, schemes and machinations of groups that organize and recruit members of the tribes to join their cause within their ancestral domains, violating their individual and collective rights as indigenous peoples and non-recognition of their Indigenous Political Structures (IPS). 13. The 2017 CHRP national inquiry on the current situation of all indigenous peoples in the Philippines intends to provide solutions to such problems through consensus building among the IP stakeholders, government, and mainstream civil society. The processes and eventual findings of the national inquiry is expected to fully operationalize the IP Rights Observatory (IPRO) of CHRP. 14. Additionally, the CHRP provided comments to the Mainstreaming Human Rights Based Approach Principles in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and Regional Development Plans (RDPs), facilitated by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). The PDP and RDPs consist of cross-cutting themes on development, the environment, economic rights, health and welfare that affect marginalized and vulnerable groups including indigenous communities, women, children, older persons and persons with disabilities. 15. The Commission conducted a “Reproductive Health National Inquiry”14 in the second and third quarters of 2016. The Commission found several barriers to the promotion and protection of the reproductive health and rights of women, including indigenous and minority women: 15.1. Despite passage of and current national implementation of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act (Reproductive Health Law), challenges continue on de facto availability, accessibility, sufficiency, and adequacy of reproductive health services and information. 15.2. There is apparent criminalization of traditional and indigenous home births in many local government ordinances, while DOH claimed that penalization of home births was not adopted as a policy. The DOH explains the same as a misinterpretation by the LGUs of the DOH’s encouragement of facility based deliveries. With the proliferation of such ordinances, and the outcry of indigenous groups and women in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas (GIDA), representatives from the DOH admit the need to review and for once clarify the Department’s stand. 15.3. In many instances, health facilities are inaccessible or absent in geographically inaccessible areas, and in cases where they are present and accessible, challenges are posed as to the sufficiency of facilities and equipment and of the supplies of the commodities 14 “Let our voice be heard,” Report of the Commission on Human Rights Philippines’ National Inquiry on Reproductive Health and Rights, 2016, http://198.23.173.74/chr/wp-content/uploads/CHR-RH-INQUIRY-REPORT.pdf (Last Accessed: 10 May 2017). Recommendations can be found on pages 29-32 of the report.