55 to be beyond the Commission’s powers and/or jurisdiction.”221 The petitioners invite BHP Billiton to submit a detailed response to the Honorable Commission describing its concerns with prayers 1 and 5 in the Petition. Argumentation on the important matters, such as this, should take place within the national public inquiry process. C. Currently, there are no confidentiality rules to prevent respondents from disclosing their comments on and answers to the Petition because the Honorable Commission’s national inquiry is a transparent and public proceeding. 3.6. Three (3) companies -- respondents Repsol,222 Peabody Energy,223 and BP plc224 -- declined to share their responses sent to the Honorable Commission and petitioners with the BHRRC. Respondent Repsol and Peabody communicated that the Omnibus Rules of the Commission require confidentiality, but failed to cite to a particular rule. Respondent BP plc, on the other hand, stated that it “was not in a position to comment on an ongoing investigation.”225 3.7. Contrary to the positions taken by respondents Repsol and Peabody, there are no confidentiality rules or agreements for the present proceeding. According to the Omnibus Rules of the Commission, “public inquiry shall generally be open to the public, transparent and allows for the participation of affected parties and sectors.”226 While some companies may prefer the national inquiry to happen behind closed doors so their activities and influence are kept from public scrutiny, the success of this undertaking depends on open and active participation of all parties and stakeholders, who/which must actively cooperate with the Honorable Commission. 3.8. The urgency of the climate crisis and the significant threats posed to Filipinos and those residing in the country require a transparent and inclusive proceeding. Similar to other weighty matters taken on by the 221 BHP Billiton’s Statement submitted to Business & Human Rights Resource Centre dated 12 September 2016, available at https://business-humanrights.org/en/fossil-fuel-cos-respond-to-petition-with-philippineshuman-rights-commission-on-human-rights-climate-change-impacts, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 222 Repsol S.A.’s Letter to BHRRC dated 08 November 2016, available at https://businesshumanrights.org/en/fossil-fuel-cos-respond-to-petition-with-philippines-human-rights-commission-onhuman-rights-climate-change-impacts/?dateorder=datedesc&page=0&componenttype=all, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 223 Peabody’s Statement dated 20 October 2016, available at https://business-humanrights.org/en/fossilfuel-cos-respond-to-petition-with-philippines-human-rights-commission-on-human-rights-climate-changeimpacts/?dateorder=datedesc&page=0&componenttype=all, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 224 BP plc’s Letter to BHRRC dated 10 October 2016, available at https://businesshumanrights.org/en/fossil-fuel-cos-respond-to-petition-with-philippines-human-rights-commission-onhuman-rights-climate-change-impacts/?dateorder=datedesc&page=0&componenttype=all, last accessed on 06 February 2017. 225 BP plc, op cit. 226 Par. 2, Section 2, Rule 7 of the Omnibus Rules of the Commission.