Principle 25 of the third pillar on access to remedy is also relevant to the jurisdiction of the Philippines Commission on Human Rights: “As part of their duty to protect against businessrelated human rights abuse, States must take appropriate steps to ensure, through judicial, administrative, legislative or other appropriate means, that when such abuses occur within their territory and/or jurisdiction those affected have access to effective remedy.” Again, as the experience of climate harms by Filipino people is clearly within the territory of the Philippines, the Philippines is where the abuses occur. National human rights mechanisms, like the Philippine Commission, are specifically contemplated in the Commentary.9 Furthermore, according to Principle 26: “States should take appropriate steps to ensure the effectiveness of domestic judicial mechanisms when addressing business-related human rights abuses, including considering ways to reduce legal, practical and other relevant barriers that could lead to a denial of access to remedy.”10 Among the barriers identified in the Commentary to Principle 26 that can prevent legitimate redress is “[t]he way in which legal responsibility is attributed among members of a corporate group …[which] … facilitates the avoidance of appropriate accountability.”11 The climate harms at issue in the Philippine petition were experienced by Filipinos in the Philippines or will be experienced there in the future. The petitioners request an investigation of the identified investor-owned Carbon Majors, many of whom do business in the Philippines, whether directly or through affiliates or other business relationships. The UN Guiding Principles contemplate the importance of access to remedy, and the important role that State human rights commissions must play in the quest for remedy, irrespective of the corporate form of the business enterprise. While it is true that the physical location from which emissions of greenhouse gases linked to the products of many of the Carbon Majors were and are released is not within the territory of the Philippines, this is irrelevant. The harm and therefore abuse has been and will be experienced in the Philippines, and therefore the Commission of Human Rights of the Philippines has jurisdiction to consider the request for an investigation. It is important to distinguish the permissive exercise of jurisdiction by a State under rules of public international law, from the obligation to exercise jurisdiction which may or may not exist as a primary rule of international human rights law. The petitioners make reference to the Maastricht Principles on the Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights12 and assert that the Philippines has an obligation to “respect, protect and fulfil human rights abroad.” That may very well be, but is not relevant to the jurisdiction of the Philippines Commission on Human Rights on the facts before the Commission. There is no issue of extraterritoriality here. The harm is clearly felt within the Philippines. Therefore, as part of the State duty to protect the rights of Filipinos, the Commission is entitled if not obligated to exercise jurisdiction over this request for an investigation into harms linked to the products of the investor-owned Carbon Majors. In order to effectively complete the investigation, the 9 UNGPs at p22. UNGPs at p23. 11 UNGPs at p23. 12 UNGPs at p9. 10 3