3 On 21 July 2016, the Honorable Commission enjoined respondent Carbon Majors to file their respective comments or answers within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the Petition. Fourteen (14) out of the forty-seven (47)2 respondents submitted answers or comments to the Petition. Regrettably, the majority of the respondents turned down the opportunity to engage with the petitioners and the Honorable Commission in addressing the climate crisis. Further, almost3 all of the respondents that submitted a comment or answer refused to accept the Petition and order, or asked to be removed from the proceedings, or for the proceedings to be dismissed, primarily on procedural grounds. As will be shown, respondents’ comments or answers are without merit. The independent non-profit Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) invited all respondents to share comments and answers submitted to the Commission in accordance with the 21 July 2016 Order. Eleven (11) companies volunteered their positions. One company declined to respond. Four (4) of the companies that responded to the BHRRC also submitted a comment or answer to the Honorable Commission. In total, twenty-one (21) companies have engaged to some degree with the Petition. While the petitioners welcome the official answers and comments to the Petition that triggered this national public inquiry, they contend that respondents, by seeking the dismissal of the Petition on procedural grounds and technicalities, are missing the point of this proceeding. This is a Petition that invokes the Honorable Commission’s investigatory, recommendatory, and monitoring powers to prevent or curb further violations of petitioners’ and all Filipinos’ constitutionally-protected human rights resulting from the impacts of climate change. It presents neither a criminal lawsuit that requires corpus delicti and proof beyond reasonable doubt, nor a civil case for damages that demands direct or proximate causation. The national public inquiry is not a judicial proceeding. The subject matter of the Petition—human rights infringements in the context of climate change—is well within the scope of authority of the Honorable Commission. Climate change, as defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), refers to “a change 2 Of the listed 51 entities in Annex “C” to the Petition, only 47 were notified due to acquisitions, termination of existence, and becoming a subsidiary of a state-owned company because the petition focuses only on investor-owned companies. Please see Annex “A” to the Consolidated Reply for a list of respondents that submitted answers, comments, and statements to the petitioners and/or Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. 3 Rio Tinto understands that the national public inquiry is “fact-finding and non-adversarial in nature.” Rio Tinto London Ltd, Letter Ad Cautelam and without Submission to Jurisdiction to Commission Cadiz dated 10 October 2016, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 19 October 2016, available at https://business-humanrights.org/en/fossil-fuel-cos-respond-to-petition-with-philippines-human-rightscommission-on-human-rights-climate-change-impacts, last accessed on 06 February 2017.