Memorandum for the Petitioners |142 8.214. Fundamentally, the pieces of evidence at hand show that many of the respondents knew the risks of their products, and yet continued to expand their production of fossil fuel to ever greater levels over time. Indeed, more than fifty percent (50%) of all CO2 emitted into the atmosphere was emitted after 1988, at which point respondents had already been on notice for decades of these risks.°4 Responsibility Majors under and rules of respondent Carbon domestic or national laws 8.215.In addition to the respondent Carbon Majors’ responsibility under international laws, treaties, and agreements, petitioners submit there are ample legal grounds to hold the companies responsible under national laws. The Honorable Commission can anchor its finding of responsibility against respondents under the following domestic laws and causes of action — e.g., public nuisance and misleading advertisement -- which will give life to the spirit and very essence of human rights protection that is the core mandate of this Honorable Commission. 664 Testimony of Mr. Carroll Muffett, TSN dated 23-24 May 2018, p. 20, also available at http://chr.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/20 19/04/NICC-TSN-May-23-to-24-201 8-Metro-ManilaPhilippines.pdf (last accessed on 12 September 2019). 665 Article 649 of the New Civil Code provides that, “[a] nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property. See case of State of Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., et al (supra note 26), which is a case against numerous fossil fuel companies, including several of the respondents herein (e.g., Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, etc.). The State of Rhode Island argued that defendants (major corporate members of the fossil fuel industry) caused an unreasonable interference with the right of the Rhode Island citizens to the use and enjoyment of public and private property in the state. Rhode Island maintained that defendants created, contributed to, and/or was a substantial contributing factor in the creation of public nuisance. The case’s current status is that, on 22 July 2019, the federal District Court for the State of Rhode Island granted the State’s motion to remand the suit to state court. Thus, the suit will be adjudicated according to Rhode Island’s laws and not federal laws. 666 Article 110 of the Consumer Act of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 7394), which protects consumers from false, deceptive, or misleading advertisements, stating that: It shall be unlawful for any person to disseminate or to cause the dissemination of any false, deceptive or misleading advertisement by Philippine mail or in commerce by print, radio, television, outdoor advertisement or other medium for the purpose of inducing or which is likely to induce directly or indirectly the purchase of consumer products or services (Article 110 of R.A. No. 7394 is available at https://www.lawphil net/statutes/repacts/ra1992/ra_7394_1992.htm! [last accessed on 06 September 2019]). Also see: Sections I to 3 of Act No. 3740, otherwise known as “An Act to Penalize Fraudulent Advertising, Mislabeling or Misbranding of any Product, Stocks, Bonds, Etc.,” penalize the fraudulent advertising, mislabeling, or misbranding of any product. It states that no person, firm, or corporation may misrepresent “the character, value, properties or condition of any article offered or exposed for sale, barter, or exchange or of the materials of which said article is composed.” (Sections 1 to 3 of Act No. 3740 is available at http://laws.chanrobles.com/acts/7_acts.php?id=3 13 [last accessed on 06 September 2019)).