40 include prosecution of 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. What is the impact of this new or additional prosecutorial power to the investigative, recommendatory, and monitoring powers of the Honorable Commission? It is worthwhile to ponder upon this question, but it is not relevant to this Petition. 2.98. To underscore, this Petition was primarily lodged to request the Honorable Commission to exercise its investigatory, recommendatory, and monitoring powers to prevent or curb further violations of petitioners’ and all Filipinos’ constitutionally-protected human rights in the context of climate change. D.3. The fact that the Honorable Commission was not included among the government agencies composing the advisory board of the Philippine Climate Change Commission (PCCC) did not preclude the Honorable Commission from conducting this national inquiry. Neither did the Honorable Commission, by taking cognizance of this case, usurp the jurisdiction of the PCCC. 2.99. In their respective responses,161 respondents Shell and LafargeHolcim argued against the Honorable Commission’s evident investigatory, recommendatory, and monitoring powers. They claim that the Honorable Commission was not included among the government agencies composing the advisory board of the PCCC -- allegedly the government agency tasked to formulate the official Philippine positions on climate change negotiation issues and decision areas in the international arena -hence, purportedly reflect that the Congress does not consider the Honorable Commission to have any jurisdiction over environmental, climate change, or socio-economic and cultural matters.162 2.100. This argument is non sequitur. The fact that this Honorable Commission was not among those named in the law creating the PCCC (Republic Act [R.A.] No. 9279, as amended by R.A. No. 10174) neither dilute the Honorable Commission’s constitutionally endowed investigatory, monitoring, and recommendatory powers, as discussed, nor preclude it from conducting this national public inquiry. The PCCC did not attain any sole “jurisdiction” over environmental, climate or socio-economic, and cultural 161 No. I (D), p. 26 of respondent Shell’s Motion to Dismiss Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam and Letter D, p. 5 of the attached letter to respondent LafargeHolcim’s Manifestation Ad Cautelam (Without Any Acceptance or Submission to Jurisdiction) dated 15 September 2016. 162 supra., note 161.