You are on page 1of 3

ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical Holdings, Inc.

Philippine Branch (EMPCHI)

About the company:

It the largest publicly traded international oil and gas company, uses technology and innovation to help
meet the worlds growing energy needs. ExxonMobil hold an industry-leading inventory of resources
and are one of the worlds largest integrated refiners, marketers of petroleum products and chemical

ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical Holdings, Inc. Philippine Branch is a subsidiary of ExxonMobil.2


Motion to dismiss ad Cautelam

They challenge the Honorable Commissions jurisdiction in the exercise of caution, and without
submitting itself to this Honorable Commissions jurisdiction.


1. Lack of Jurisdiction over the person of EMPCHI due to improper service of the CHR order.

The courts order dated July 21, 2016 was improperly served as it was served by courier which is not a
mode of service allowed or recognized under the Omnibus Rules of Procedure of the Commission of
Human Rights (CHR Rules). Also, it was not served on EMPCHIs resident agent as required by law.

First, under Rule 4, Section12 of the CHR Rules, the service of invitations, orders, subpoena, or summons
to the parties shall be done by personal service or by registered mail.

The Supreme Court ruled that utilizing a courier service to serve the Omnibus Motion for
reconsideration and for New Trial by Planters Development Bank was an improper mode of service as
this is not a mode provided for by the Rules of Court.3 As such, the defective service of the CCHR Order
did not and could not vest the CHR with jurisdiction over EMPCHI.

Second, section 128 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines, service of process on a foreign
corporation with a branch office in the Philippines must be made on its resident agent on whom
summons and other legal processes may be served in all actions or other legal proceedings against such
corporation. EMPCHI has no current operations in the Philippines and has no employees, officers, or
directors in the Philippines.

It is undisputed the CHR Order was not served on EMPCHIs resident agent as required by law.

2. The petition fails to state a cause of action against EMPCHI.

1 last accessed (Nov. 12, 2017).
2 last accessed (Nov. 12,
Palileo v Planters Development Bank, G. R. No. 193650, Oct. 8, 2014.
The CHR Order does not name EMPCHI as a respondent and the Petition fails to allege any act or
omission of EMPCHI that supposedly violated the Petitioners legal rights.

Rule 4, section 12 of the CHR Rules states that a party shall be identified as a respondent when the
person is named/ identified as such in the complaint or in the course of investigation.

The petition describes Respondents as Carbon Majors as supposedly the largest multinational and
state-owned procedures of crude oil, natural gas, coal and cement. Petitioners define Carbon Majors as
those solely existing investor-owned Carbon Majors produces listed in Tables 1 and 2. These tables do
not list EMPCHI.

Petition states that the investor-owned Carbon Major Respondents company names, principal business
addresses and addresses of the branch in the Philippines are listed in Annex C. Annex C incorrectly lists
EMPCHI as a branch of Exxon Mobil. EMPCHI is not a branch of Exxon Moil and is not authorized to
receive the CHR order on behalf of any of the Respondents.

The petition is defective for its failure to identify EMPCHI as a respondent. It also does not allege any
act or omission of EMPCHI that supposedly violated Petitioners legal rights.

3. Lack of Jurisdiction over the petition as the petition does not seek monitoring of compliance by the
Philippines Government with applicable treaties and does not involve any human rights violations
involving civil or political rights.

A. rights invoked are not civil nor political rights

The Petition asks the Commission to act beyond the scope of its authority under the 1987 Constitution.

First, the CHRs power to monitor compliance by the Philippine Government with international treaties
is circumscribed by Article XIII, Section 18(7) of the Philippine Constitution which provides that the CHR
shall monitor the Governments compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights.
While the petition invokes Rule 2 Section 2 of the CHR Rules which refers to the CHRs power to monitor
the Philippine Governments compliance with international human rights treaties and instruments as a
basis for the CHRs jurisdiction, the petition only names private parties. It does not name the Philippine
Government as the entity to be investigated.

None of the said international treaties identified in the petition determines climate change impacts as a
human right as a matter of international law and does not contend otherwise.

Second, the Petition does not allege human rights violations involving civil or political rights. In line
with the Philippine Constitutions provision under Article XIII, Section 18(1), giving the CHR power to
Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil
and political rights.

The Supreme Court held that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, suggests
that the scope of human rights can be understood to include social, economic, cultural, political and civil
relations.4 The framers of the Philippine constitution specifically adopted a narrower and more limited
concept of human rights in adopting the specific provisions on human rights and in creating this
Honorable Commission.5

The limited scope of the CHR is investigatory is further shown by the human rights cases referred by the
Philippine Supreme Court to the CHR for investigation being those involving enforced disappearances,
police / military abduction, torture or maltreatment, and warrantless searches and arrests.6

No statute has been passed expanding the CHRs authority to cover other cases of alleged violations of
human rights.

The CHR Rules must be interpreted within the boundaries of the Constitutional authority conferred to it
and these cannot unduly expand the Constitution. As the rule making authority of the CHR does not
extend to the enlargement of its jurisdiction as provided for by the Philippine Constitution, Article XIII,
Section 18(2).

Simply put, the investigative power of the CHR only extends to human rights violations involving civil
and political rights. And the alleged human rights violations or threats of violation in the Petition do not
involve the type of civil and political rights as intended by the enumerated in the Philippine Constitution
and are not even in the Bill of Rights. In fact, in Oposa v Factoran, the Supreme Court said the that right
to a healthful and balanced ecology belongs to a different category of rights from the civil and political
rights in the Bill of rights.

B. The investigative power of the CHR is limited to fact finding only

Other remedies sought are outside the CHRs authority which must be limited to fact finding. The
petition asks the CHR to determine whether the respondents must account for the alleged human rights
implications of climate change. This inappropriately seeks the adjudication of the parties legal rights.
For instance, the CHR is asked to take official or administrative notice of certain respondents supposed
contribution to carbon dioxide emissions and the UN Guiding principles on the business and Human
Rights, the basis of the Petition concerning the human rights implications of climate change and ocean
acidification and the estimated responsibility of the carbon majors. And the supposed developments in
international climate law and foreign legal actions, cases and investigations concerning climate change.

This official or administrative notice does not have any basis in law or in the CHR Rules and is antithetical
to the investigative function of the CHR.

Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, GR 100150, January 5, 1994.
Deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission as quoted in the Simon case
Burgos v Esperon, G.R. No. 178497, Feb. 4, 2014, (other citations omitted).