Amicus Brief – Human Rights and Climate Change 1. Interpreting the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction 1.1. THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION IN THE LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES 1. The petitioners submit that the Commission has jurisdiction to consider all human rights violations associated with climate change impacts, arguing that its jurisdiction encompasses not only civil and political, but also economic, social, and cultural rights.3 Conversely, numerous respondents suggest that the Commission’s ‘power to monitor compliance by the Philippine Government with international treaties is circumscribed by Article XIII, Section 18(7) of the Philippine Constitution’.4 Alternatively, the respondents contend that the petition is outside the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction, as it does not allege human rights violations involving ‘civil or political rights’.5 2. The Commission has a clear explicit mandate to inquire into the responsibility of the Carbon Majors for the human rights violations alleged by the petitioners. The jurisdiction to inquire arises from the following statutory powers and functions of the Commission, either cumulatively or in the alternate: a. To investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights (Article XIII section 18(1) of the Philippine Constitution and Executive Order No. 163) and to 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 (Rule 2 Omnibus Rules of Procedure)6 b. To recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families (Article XIII section 18(6) of the Philippine Constitution and Executive Order No. 163) c. Monitor the Philippine Government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights (Article XIII section 18(7) of the Philippine Constitution and Executive Order No. 163) 3. Regarding the scope of the Commission’s investigation function, in 2012 the Commission adopted the Omnibus Rules of Procedures to guide the investigation and monitoring of human rights violation and abuses. The Omnibus Rules were enacted pursuant to Article XIII Section 18 (2) of the Constitution and Section 3 (ii) of Executive Order No. 163 which clearly prescribe the Commission’s power to “adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure in accordance with the Rules of Court”. The Omnibus Rules clarify that the monitoring of the Government’s compliance with its international obligations: 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… 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.7 4. Some respondents have asserted that the Commission’s Omnibus Rules (so far as they extend the Commission’s jurisdiction to investigate economic, social, and cultural rights) were adopted ultra vires. There are at least three counter arguments to this assertion. 5