9 using the word ‘JURISDICTION’ which might be confused with the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts, the municipal courts, we put ‘AUTHORITY’. I think that will be a more appropriate term in defining the scope of the work of the commission. Is that acceptable to Commissioner Nolledo? xxx MR. DE LOS REYES: So, it ‘AUTHORITY’ instead of ‘JURISDICTION’. will be THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable? MR. NOLLEDO: I will accept the amendment, Madam President. MR. SARMIENTO: The amendment is accepted, Madam President.”16 (Emphasis supplied) 2.6. When the Honorable Commission exercises its “jurisdiction,” or authority to be more precise, it acts according to its special investigatory, recommendatory, and monitoring mandate, not as a court of law that needs to acquire -- in its technical sense -- jurisdiction over the person and subject matter before it can hear and decide a legal controversy. 2.7. As will be discussed below, the Honorable Commission has the authority to take cognizance of the Petition and proceed with the national public inquiry. B. The Honorable Commission has authority to conduct national public inquiry concerning the respondents. B.1. The service of the Petition and Order requiring respondents to comment is proper and sufficient considering the nature of the current proceedings, which is primarily investigative -not prosecutorial or judicial -- in character. 2.8. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the current inquiry is not judicial, but chiefly investigative in character. Hence, the rigid and exacting construction of the legal concept of “jurisdiction,” as explained, is inapplicable to the Petition. 16 Deliberations of the Constitutional Commission in the creation of the Commission on Human Rights, Sponsorship Remarks of Commissioners Sarmiento and Garcia, pp. 167-168, as found in Human Rights Legislative Agenda Resource Book, available at http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/HR-Legislative-Agenda-Resource-book-1.pdf, last accessed on 01 January 2017.