29 2.62. The Philippines and its agencies -- as duty-holders -- are obligated to protect and promote human rights and, thus, take necessary actions to prevent human rights abuses that occur within its territory, including with respect to abuses caused by businesses located outside its territory.110 Contrary to respondent Shell’s arguments that there is no proper basis for the Honorable Commission to exercise jurisdiction over respondents,111 the Commission is required to exercise its authority to investigate the acts of the respondents, in accordance with its power to monitor the Philippine Government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights. 2.63. All States have obligations under international law to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights, as recognized in Section 2 of Rule 2 of the Omnibus Rules of Procedure.112 The obligation to respect human rights implies that States must refrain from interfering with, or curtailing the enjoyment of, human rights.113 The obligation to protect human rights, on the other hand, requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses, including by business enterprises.114 Meanwhile, the obligation to fulfill human rights denotes that they must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of fundamental human rights.115 2.64. These obligations arise from human rights treaties and agreements and other sources of international law.116 As a State that has endorsed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights117 and party to several human rights treaties -- including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”)118 -- the Philippines has assumed the 110 See De Schutter, O., Eide, A., Khalfan, A., Künnemann, R., Černič, J., Orellana, M., Seiderman, I., and Thiele, B., amicus submission dated 05 December 2016, p. 11, available at https://businesshumanrights.org/en/amicus-briefs, last accessed on 08 February 2017. 111 Respondent Shell’s Motion to Dismiss Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam and Letter D, p. 7. 112 Section 2 of Rule 2 of the Omnibus Rules of the Commission; see also The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights (An Interpretative Guide), available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/HR.PUB.12.2_En.pdf, p. 10, last accessed on 17 January 2017. 113 The Corporate Responsibility to Human Rights (An Interpretative Guide), Id., p. 10. 114 supra., note 113. 115 supra., note 113. 116 ClientEarth’s amicus submission, op cit., 22-27; De Schutter, O., et al., op cit., pp. 3-4, on file with the Honorable Commission. 117 UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III) 118 See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force 23 March 1976; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force 03 January 1976; Convention on the Rights of the Child, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force 02 September 1990; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, U.N. Doc. A/34/46, entered into force 03 September 1981; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1966), 660 U.N.T.S. 195, entered into force 04 January 1969.