to sanitation; (f) to adequate housing; and (g) to self-determination.24 Climate impacts that could cause death and devastation, not unlike the suffering imposed upon millions of Filipinos, was predicted by research scientists that were funded by the Carbon Majors. Decades of correspondences exchanged amongst scientists include increasingly dire alarms about the potentially catastrophic, if uncertain, impacts on agriculture, rainfall patterns, severe weather events, and populations living in coastal zones or other vulnerable regions.25 These scientific studies and resulting conclusions were funded by and disseminated among the Carbon Majors, but largely withheld from public entities, like this Commission, that are responsible for protecting persons, property, and the environment from harm. Access to these scientific studies would have enabled public entities charged with protecting human rights in vulnerable communities to access information and execute their Constitutional responsibilities decades ago. We echo the question presented by the Amicus Curiae Brief submitted by ELAW and similarly ask, if the Commission does not undertake this investigation, who will?26 We are concerned that if the Commission fails to conduct an investigation the Filipino people will be denied the human rights protections that the Carbon Majors have knowingly ignored and denied. Furthermore, if the Commission rejects the Petitioners’ request for inquiry, there is a strong likelihood that the Filipino people will be denied human rights protections in the future despite the Constitutional and international human rights authorities committed to such protections. An Investigation by the Commission Appropriately Ensures that the Human Rights of the Philippine People are Monitored for Human Rights Abuses We support the Petitioners’ analysis that the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“Guiding Principles”) and relevant commentary provide the Commission with the widely accepted norms and standards by which to assess the conduct of business enterprises to respect human rights.27 Guiding Principle 1 describes the duty of States to protect against human rights abuses by businesses as including “appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress such abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication.”28 As a State actor the Commission can assert that conducting this investigation fulfills this duty. As the need to address the threat of the humanitarian crisis caused by climate change becomes more urgent, the legal discourse acknowledging the connection between human rights, climate 24 See Petition at 60. See Synthesis Report, supra note 4, at 12. 26 See Amicus Curiae Brief of ELAW, supra note 3. 27 In applying the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the present circumstances, it bears note that the Guiding Principles provide only a framework and an entry point to that analysis. While the Guiding Principles were adopted only in 2011, the fundamental human rights instruments that it encompasses, and which business enterprises must respect date to the very beginnings of the modern system of human rights—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966). The rights themselves are older still, arising from the basic moral precepts and social contract which bind humans together into society. See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011). [hereinafter Guiding Principles]. 28 See Guiding Principles, supra note 27, at Principle 1. ICAR Human Rights Due Dilligence, 2013. 25 8