39 2.92. Nonetheless, whether or not this Honorable Commission is a quasi-judicial body is beside the point. Its authority to take cognizance of the Petition and investigate the subject matter therein has overwhelmingly been established by law, rules, international instruments, and jurisprudence. D.2. The provision contained in the Human Security Act, specifying the Honorable Commission’s role to give highest priority to investigations or prosecutions of violations of civil and political rights, did not curtail the Commission’s constitutionally mandated investigative powers. 2.93. Respondent Shell concluded that the Congress “expressly acknowledged, in recent legislative acts, that the CHR’s jurisdiction is confined to violations of civil and political rights.”160 Respondent Shell merely cited, although incompletely, Section 55 of R.A. 9372, otherwise known as the “Human Security Act of 2007.” 2.94. Section 55 of the Human Security Act of 2007 provides: “Section 55. Role of the Commission on Human Rights. - The Commission on Human Rights shall give the highest priority to the investigation and prosecution of violations of civil and political rights of persons in relation to the implementation of this Act; and for this purpose, the Commission shall have the concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute public officials, law enforcers, and other persons who may have violated the civil and political rights of persons suspected of, or detained for the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.” 2.95. The afore-quoted provision is naught with any semblance of limiting the Honorable Commission’s broad investigatory, recommendatory, and monitoring powers. The legislative fiat merely speaks of “priority,” noting the primacy of civil and political rights, which need serious and urgent attention by this Honorable Commission due to the existing circumstances at that time where terrorist-related activities were at its height. 2.96. Moreover, the provision merely talks about the additional function of the Honorable Commission, specifically its role in implementing the law. On this score alone, respondent Shell’s argument fails. 2.97. What can be gathered from the above provision is the fact that the Congress even expanded the Honorable Commission’s powers to 160 No. I (D), pp. 26 of respondent Shell’s Motion to Dismiss Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam.