36 reasonable link between the State concerned and the conduct it seeks to regulate” (emphasis added).149 Principle 3 elaborates that “[a]ll States have obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, both within their territories and extraterritorially.”150 Principle 37 requires states to “ensure the enjoyment of the right to a prompt, accessible and effective remedy before an independent authority, including, where necessary, recourse to a judicial authority, for violations of economic, social and cultural rights. Where the harm resulting from an alleged violation has occurred on the territory of a State other than a State in which the harmful conduct took place, any state concerned must provide remedies to the victim.”151 2.84. The above relevant principles particularly state in explicit terms the Philippine state’s obligation to protect individuals in the Philippines and to prevent abuses of their human rights, specifically by respondents’ contribution to carbon emissions, occurring both within and outside the Philippines. 2.85. Respondent Carbon Majors are domiciled in many countries around the world, from the United States to South Africa to Australia. The corporate groups’ operations take place in an even greater number of countries. The products are sold and burnt in still a larger number of countries. Yet the harm at issue in this national public inquiry is occurring here, in this country, our home, the Philippines. 2.86. With the foregoing, it is beyond question that States are dutybound to protect its people against human rights abuses -- and that the Honorable Commission is constitutionally tasked to investigate and monitor -- within their territory or jurisdiction, whether committed by State or nonState actors, including businesses, such as respondents herein. Thus, the Honorable Commission is indubitably well within its “jurisdiction” or authority to investigate based on the Petition. 2.87. However, respondent ExxonMobil asked why the government of the Philippines was not named as respondent in the Petition reasoning that all the obligations based on international laws and principles are obligations 149 supra., note 148. supra., note 148. 151 Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 29 NETH. Q. HUMAN RIGHTS 578 (2011), available at http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/web/Institutes/MaastrichtCentreForHumanRights/MaastrichtETO Principles.htm, last accessed on 08 February 2017. 150