Amicus Brief – Human Rights and Climate Change 15 The Commission has the power to interpret its jurisdiction within the boundaries set by the Constitution. Constitution, art. VIII, sec. 18.2. The principle of la compétence de la compétence refers to the power of a tribunal or other judicial organ to ascertain its own jurisdiction and is well established also in international law. See e.g. the Decision of 2 October 1995 on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction in the Dusko Tadic, Case No: IT-94-1-T. Available at www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acdec/ en/51002.htm. 16 The Philippines is party to the ICCPR and the ICESCR, and all group-specific treaties. It has not become party to the protocols establishing communications procedures under the CRC, the CRPD or ICESCR; however, it has ratified the protocols to the ICCPR and the CEDAW. 17 See Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, Major General Josephus Q. Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano. See also: I. Venzke & L.A. Thio, The Internal Effects of ASEAN External Relations. (Cambridge University Press, 2016), at 140-1, and 73-4. 18 Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-4254, (1951) (en banc); Borovsky v. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L- 4352, (1951) (en banc); Villar v. TIP, G.R. No. L-69198 (1985) (en banc); Remoto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190582 (2010) (en banc). 19 Villar v. TIP. See also M.M. Magallona, ‘The Supreme Court and International Law: Problems and Approaches in Philippine Practices’ 85 Philippine Law Journal 1 (2010), 1, at 62. 20 See D.A. Desierto, ‘Justiciability of socio-economic rights: Comparative powers, roles, and practices in the Philippines and South Africa’, 11 Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal 1 (2009), 117, at 140, footnote 96; M. Langford and A. Nolan, Litigating Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Legal Practitioners Dossier (Revised), (Centre on Housing Rights & Evictions, 2006), at 104. See also Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: The Philippines, E/C.12/PHL/CO/5-6, 2016, para. 5. 21 Oposa, et al. v. Factoran, Jr. et al., G.R. No. 101083 (1993) (en banc). 22 See for example, Report of the Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, Compilation of good practices, A/HRC/28/61, 3 February 2015, at 75. 23 See analysis of cases and the 2010 Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases in E. Barrett Ristroph, ‘The Role of Philippine Judges in Establishing the Environmental Rule of Law’, 42 Environmental Law Reporter 2 (2012), 1, at 16, footnote 77, available at https://works.bepress.com/elizabeth_ristroph/3/. See also Supreme Court Decision of December 8, 2015 on the consolidated cases ISAAA v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et al., G.R. No. 209271, Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau of Plant Industry and Fertilizers and Pesticides Authority of the Department of Agriculture v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines) et al., G.R. No. 209276; University of the Philippines Los Banos Foundation, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. No. 209301; and University of the Philippines v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. No. 209430. 24 Response of Apache Corporation (Apache), at II. Similarly: Marathon Oil Corporation (Marathon) Parts, at II; Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody), at 5.3; and Repsol SA (Repsol), at 2. 25 Cemex, at 11. Similarly, The Shell Company of the Philippines Limited and Royal Dutch Shell Plc (Shell), at F. 26 On jurisdiction, see R.Y. Jennings, ‘Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the United States Antitrust Laws’ (1957) 33 British Year Book of International Law 146, 146; F.A. Mann, The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law, vol 111 (Recueil des Cours 1964); M. Akehurst M, ‘Jurisdiction in International Law’ (1975) 46 British Yearbook of International Law 145; D.W. Bowett, ‘Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’ (1983) 53 British Yearbook of International Law 1; F.A. Mann, The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited After Twenty Years, vol 186 (Recueil des Cours 1984); L. Oppenheim and others, Oppenheim’s International Law, vol 1 (9th ed, Longman 1996) 456 ff.; R. Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Clarendon Press 1995) chapter 4; H. Ruiz Fabri and J.M. Sorel (eds), La Saisine Des Juridictions Internationales (A Pedone 2006); J. Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th Ed, Oxford University Press 2012) chapter VII; M.N. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge University Press 2014) ch 12; and C. Staker, ‘Jurisdiction’ in M. Evans (ed), International Law (4th Edition, Oxford University Press 2014). See also Third US Restatement of Foreign Relations Law, 1987, vol. I, part IV. 27 Staker (note 26 above), at 314. 28 S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey), 1927 P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10 (Lotus case). 29 Cemex, at 11; and, similarly, Shell, at F.1 30 Lotus case, para. 18. 31 Ibid., para. 19. 32 A.L. Parrish, ‘Reclaiming International Law from Extraterritoriality’, 93 Minnesota Law Review (2009) 818. 33 Crawford (note 26 above), at 456–457. 34 On reasonableness, see C. Ryngaert, Jurisdiction in International Law (Oxford University Press 2008), chapter 5. 35 E. Rehbinder, ‘Extra-Territoriality of Pollution Control Laws from a European Perspective’ in G. Handl, J. Zekoll and P. Zumbansen (eds), Beyond Territoriality: Transnational Legal Authority in an Age of Globalization (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012), at 129. 36 Ibid. 21