--·-··=~--~~==..':=""'"·-~- ~~===,==::::='-!~=-=-~-=-"'--':::l::..===--===~-"-===""'-===~=l--·~===-=-"-====--. ~=--='-==="---"""===="~-0''-=.o-=--"""-~~ In his book "Just Business"/1 Ruggie himself explained that the Protect-Respect-Remedy Framework addresses what should be done, while the GPs tell us how to do it. The Framework and the GPs rest on three pillars. The first is the state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties including business enterprises, through appropriate policies, regulation and adjudication. The second is the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means that business enterprises should act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to address adverse impacts with which they are involved. The third is the need for greater access by victims to effective remedy, both judicial and nonjudicial. Each pillar is an essential component in an interrelated and dynamic system of preventive and remedial measures: the state duty to protect because it lies at the very core of the international human rights regime; the corporate responsibility to respect because it is the basic expectation society has of business in relation to human rights; and access to remedy because even the most concerted efforts cannot prevent all abuse. It is believed that the challenge now is to translate the GPs into binding human rights obligations for non-state actors such as business, hence the need for states to develop the national action plan on how to do it. Whenever relevant, the present research is informed with the toolkit 22 developed by the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) and the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR) for the development, implementation and review of state commitments to B&HR frameworks. Annex 4 of the toolkit presents a national baseline assessment template coupled with some indicators to guide the process of evaluating the human rights situation of a country and determine the gaps to be addressed through legal and policy reforms that will be included in the national action plan. Nevertheless, the subject template has not included indicators for Pillar 2 on business' responsibility to respect. This is suitable for the present research as agribusiness companies have not yet been engaged at this phase. Still, reference to "The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An Interpretative Guide"23 is also made. A gap is identified by comparing the actual and immediately perceived acts and omissions of the duty-bearers to specific human rights standards, which is provided through the primary references in so far as the present study is concerned. The three main questions posited at the beginning of this paper are crafted to correspond to the Protect-Respect-Remedy Framework. Here, we seek to know the situation of business regulation of the Philippine agriculture sector, then moving on to compare the situation with the ideal standards set in the GPs in terms of structures, process and outcome. Thereafter, we show the impacts of the acts and omissions of business and government to the communities where they directly operate, by surveying the complaints that surface in related literature and during focus group discussions (July 27, August 17, August 18, September 27-28, 2016). 24 Data from CHRP's records are also examined. By communities, we refer to both indigenous peoples (IPs) and non-IPs as well. Actual cases are cited to serve as examples of relevant points being raised in the specific contexts that are being discussed. It is our intention to present here the status quo, from which progressive improvement is being sought. Legal and Policy Framework Regulating Philippine Agribusiness: 1. How is agribusiness regulated in the Philippines? There is no single law or policy in the Philippines that covers all the regulations pertaining to Philippine agribusiness in its entirety. General laws and policies on the regulation of business are thus applicable. For example, a company who would want to engage in agribusiness would have to consider obtaining the necessary registration records, permits, and other legal requirements categorized for registration, regulatory and operational purposes, as shown in Table 525 hereunder: 21 Ruggie, J. (March 25, 2013) Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. W. W. Norton & Company 22 National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights: A Toolkit for the Development, Implementation, and Review of State Commitments to Business and Human Rights Frameworks (June 2014) http://icar.ngo/wpcontent/uploads/2014/06/DIHR-ICAR-National-Action-Plans-NAPs-Report3.pdf (accessed Oct. 6, 2016) 23 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2012) The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An Interpretative Guide. {HRIPUB/12/02) UN:Geneva and New York 24 Notes of the focus group discussions are attached herewith as Annexes "C", "D", "E", and "F" 25 Based on the notes provided by Mr. Mariz Agbon, President of the Philippine Agricultural and Development Corporation (PADCC, now defunct) during an interview by Atty. Torres on July 2013 8