The petition filed before the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines in 2015 was the
second attempt to cast climate change as a human rights issue. The theory of petitioners’ case
is simple: The human rights of the Filipino people are being adversely impacted by climate
change and the top oil producers of the world have contributed, and knowingly continue to
contribute, to this phenomenon.
The choice of the Philippines as a venue for the petition was made significant by the fact that
it was the chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum at the time of filing. The Philippines is visited
by twenty to twenty-two typhoons every year. In 2013, it was the victim of the strongest
typhoon to have made landfall in recorded history.
Commissioner Cadiz explained that, when the CHRP accepted the petition, there was no legal
precedent to help it navigate through the case. It lacked the resources to handle a case of that
magnitude, as well. Indeed, following the refusal of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights to hear the case of the inuits in 2005, nobody would have questioned the Philippine
Commission, had it dismissed the petition.
The oil companies have questioned the jurisdiction of the Commission to hear the case. The
Commission clarified, however, that, although it did not have enforcement jurisdiction or
compulsory processes against the parties, it had the duty to inquire into the matter brought
before it. Commissioner Cadiz explained that they were well aware of the Commission’s
jurisdictional limitations and could not compel the respondents to appear before it. Neither did
it have the power to impose any sort of damage against any of the parties.
The inquiry operated on the principle of persuasion. The Commission had, thus,
issued invitations, in lieu of summons, to the parties to participate in what had been described
as a “dialogue” on climate change. Commissioner Cadiz had earlier emphasized that, with or
without the participation of the respondents, their Commission was determined to proceed, as
it had proceeded, with its inquiry, in obeisance of its constitutional mandate to investigate
allegations of violations of human rights of the Filipino people. He further clarified that their
decision to hear the petition did not mean that they had already accepted the position of the
petitioners. The petitioners still needed to prove their allegations in a proceeding that was
transparent and respectful of the principles of due process.
The oil companies have earlier asked the Commission to dismiss the petition, arguing that
the Philippine Constitution only allowed the Commission to investigate cases involving civil
and political rights.
Commissioner Cadiz pointed out that the petition did allege violations of civil and political
rights. More importantly, he explained that all human rights are inter-related, inter-dependent,
and indivisible. Thus, one cannot consider civil and political rights separately from economic,
social, and cultural rights. He said that, unlike courts which are largely governed by precedents,
the challenge to National Human Rights Institutions is to test boundaries and create new paths;
to be bold and creative, instead of timid and docile; to be more idealistic, and less pragmatic;
to promote soft laws into becoming hard laws; to be able to see beyond legal technicalities and
establish guiding principles that can later become binding treaties. in sum, to set the bar of
human rights protection to higher standards.
The Philippine Commission on Human Rights has taken the innovation of infusing global
dimension into its inquiry by inviting stakeholders from around the globe to participate in it.
CHR: Dignity of all
Commonwealth Avenue, U.P. Complex, Diliman 1101 Quezon City Philippines
Tel. Nos. (02) 294 8704 (02) 925 3886