Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions ENDNOTES 20 1 Petition Requesting for Investigation of the Responsibility of the Carbon Majors for Human Rights Violations or Threats of Violations Resulting from the Impacts of Climate Change, Quezon City, Philippines, 9 May 2016, Case No. CHR-NI-2016-0001. 2 It has been noted that since the ‘Commission is not a court of law… the term jurisdiction… should not be construed and applied in the current inquiry’ (Petitioners Consolidated Reply, at 2.5). The use of the term jurisdiction is not, however, limited to courts of law but is commonly applied to any body that exercises governmental powers, such as a court or administrative authority. See e.g. M. Akehurst, ‘Jurisdiction in International Law’ (1975) 46 British Yearbook of International Law 145, at 178. 3 Respondents Consolidated Reply, at 2.46. 4 See e.g. ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical Holdings, Inc. (Exxon), para. 17. 5 See e.g. Exxon, at 20; Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. (Cemex), at b; and Lafarge Holcim, at 6. 6 Section 1 states: ‘Pursuant to Sections 17 to 19, Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, in relation to Executive Order No. 163, dated 5 May 1987, and relevant international human rights instruments, the Commission on Human Rights shall take cognizance of and investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations and abuses involving civil and political rights, to include but not limited to the following: a) right to life; (…)’. Section 2 states: ‘The Commission on Human Rights shall monitor the Philippine Government’s compliance with international human rights treaties and instruments to which the Philippines is a State party. This includes, but is not limited to, the actions taken by the Government, the manner and/or means of implementation or application of the human rights related laws, principles, norms and standards, in relation to the State obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad. Corollary thereto, the Commission on Human Rights, in line with its role as a national human rights institution, shall also investigate and monitor all economic, social and cultural rights violations and abuses, as well as threats of violations thereof, especially with respect to the conditions of those who are marginalized, disadvantaged, and vulnerable.’ 7 Omnibus Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Human Rights, 19 April 2012, rule 2, sec. 2. 8 The Commission may ‘investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights’. Art. VIII, sec. 18.1, Constitution; sec. 3, E.O. 163; Rule 2, sec. 1, Omnibus Rules. The sua sponte (or suo motu) ability is by no means a unique characteristic of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines. See L.C. Reif, ‘The Shifting Boundaries of NHRI Definition in the International System’, in R. Goodman and T. Pegram (eds.), Human Rights, State Compliance, and Social Change: Assessing National Human Rights Institutions (Cambridge University Press, 2011), 52. 9 For an example where civil and political rights are linked to economic, social and cultural rights, see Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Israel, E/C.12/1/Add.90, 2014, para 9. 10 See C. Scott, ‘Interdependence and Permeability of Human Rights Norms: Towards a Partial Fusion of the International Covenants on Human Rights’, 27 Osgoode Hall Law Journal (1989), 769. Since the entry into force in 2013 of the Optional Protocol to the International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, victims of violations of economic, social and cultural rights can now have direct access to a complaint mechanism at international level. 11 For example, in 2010 the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights found a violation of the right to housing and of the prohibition of forced evictions, despite the fact that the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights does not entail explicitly include such a right. The Commission read the right to housing and the prohibition of forced evictions into Article 14 of the African Charter, on the right to property. The Commission also found that the violation of the right to housing amounted to a breach of Article 5, and thus to ‘treatment [which] was cruel and inhuman and threatened the very essence of human dignity’. Thus, a hybrid right with economic and political elements was used to imply a ES right, which was then used to find a breach of a civil and political right. Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v Sudan (2010), Communication No. 279/03 and 296/05. 12 Cases from domestic and international jurisdictions, as well as scholarship engaging with these cases are discussed in I. Cismas, ‘The Intersection of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Civil and Political Rights’, in E. Riedel, G. Giacca, and C. Golay (eds.), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Contemporary Issues and Challenges (Oxford University Press, 2014), at 461-465 and 467468; C. Golay and I. Cismas, Legal Opinion: The Right to Property from a Human Rights Perspective (Rights & Democracy, 2010), 1-33, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=1635359. 13 See People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2001); People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2004); Delhi High Court remlata w/o Ram Sagar & Ors v Government of NCT Delhi (2010). See discussion in C. Golay, ‘The Right to Food and the Right to Life’, in D. Fraser and G. Almeida Rodrigues (eds.), Disrespect Today, Conflict Tomorrow: The Politics of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CCC Press, 2009), 151; S. Muralidhar, ‘Judicial Enforcement of Economic and Social Rights: the Indian Scenario’, in F. Coomans (ed.), Justiciability of Economic and Social rights: Experiences from Domestic Systems (Intersentia, 2006), 237. 14 More generally, see D.M. Chirwa and L. Chenwi, (eds.) The Protection of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Africa: International, Regional and National Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2016); C. Golay, Droit à l’alimentation et accès à la justice (Bruylant, 2011); M. Langford, ‘Domestic Adjudication and Economic, Social and Cultural rights: A Socio-Legal Review’, 6 SUR Revista Internacional de Direitos Humanos 11 (2009), 98; M. Langford (ed.), Social Rights Jurisprudence: Emerging Trends in Comparative and International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2008); F. Coomans (ed.), Justiciability of Economic and Social Rights: Experiences from Domestic Systems (Intersentia, 2006).