Export Processing Zone Authority vs CHR

, Valles, Aledia and Ordonez

G.R. No. 101476 April 14, 1992
Facts:
Valles, Aedia and Ordonez filed with CHR a joint complaint against EPZA for
allegedly violating their human rights when EPZA Project Engineer Damondamon
along with 215th PNP Company tried to level the area occupied by complainants.
The same parcel of land was reserved and allocated for purpose of development
into Cavite Export Processing Zone which was bought by Filoil Refinery Corporation
and was later sold to EPZA. CHR issued an order of injunction for EPZA and company
to desist from committing further acts of demolition, terrorism and harassment until
further order. 2 weeks later the group started bulldozing the area and CHR
reiterated its order of injunction, including the Secretary of Public Works and
Highways to desist from doing work on the area. EPZA filed a motion to life the
order with CHR for lack of authority and said motion was dismissed. EPZA filed the
case at bar for certiorari and prohibition alleging that CHR acted in excess of its
jurisdiction in issuing a restraining order and injunctive writ; that the private
respondents have no clear and positive right to be protected by an injunction; and
that CHR abused its discretion in entertaining the complaint.
EPZAs petition was granted and a TRO was issued ordering CHR to cease and desist
from enforcing/implementing the injunction orders. CHR commented that its
function is not limited to mere investigation (Art. 13, Sec. 18 of the 1987
Constitution).
Issue:
WON CHR has the jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction or restraining order
against supposed violators of human rights, to compel them to cease and desist
from continuing the acts complained of.
Ruling:
In Carino vs CHR, it was held that CHR is not a court of justice nor even a quasijudicial body. The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of
adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make
findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and
political rights. But fact-finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the
judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The
function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy
is not a judicial function, properly speaking. The constitutional provision directing
the CHR to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the
underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection" may
not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining
order or writ of injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have
expressly said so. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and never derived by implication.
Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the
Constitution refer to extra judicial and judicial remedies (including a preliminary writ
of injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the
victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no

jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued
"by the judge of any court in which the action is pending [within his district], or by a
Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. A writ of preliminary
injunction is an ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending principal action, for
the preservation or protection of the rights and interest of a party thereto, and for
no other purpose. EPZAs petition is granted
HUMAN RIGHTS: ISIDRO CARIO vs. COMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS G.R.
No. 96681, December 2, 1991
ISIDRO CARIO vs. COMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991
FACTS:
Some 800 public school teachers undertook mass concerted actions to protest the
alleged failure of public authorities to act upon their grievances. The mass actions
consisted in staying away from their classes, converging at the Liwasang Bonifacio,
gathering in peacable assemblies, etc. The Secretary of Education served them with
an order to return to work within 24 hours or face dismissal. For failure to heed the
return-to-work order, eight teachers at the Ramon Magsaysay High School were
administratively charged, preventively suspended for 90 days pursuant to sec. 41,
P.D. 807 and temporarily replaced. An investigation committee was consequently
formed to hear the charges.
When their motion for suspension was denied by the Investigating Committee, said
teachers staged a walkout signifying their intent to boycott the entire proceedings.
Eventually, Secretary Carino decreed dismissal from service of Esber and the
suspension for 9 months of Babaran, Budoy and del Castillo. In the meantime, a
case was filed with RTC, raising the issue of violation of the right of the striking
teachers to due process of law. The case was eventually elevated to SC. Also in the
meantime, the respondent teachers submitted sworn statements to Commission on
Human Rights to complain that while they were participating in peaceful mass
actions, they suddenly learned of their replacement as teachers, allegedly without
notice and consequently for reasons completely unknown to them.
While the case was pending with CHR, SC promulgated its resolution over the cases
filed with it earlier, upholding the Sec. Carinos act of issuing the return-to-work
orders. Despite this, CHR continued hearing its case and held that the striking
teachers were denied due process of law;they should not have been replaced
without a chance to reply to the administrative charges; there had been violation
of their civil and political rights which the Commission is empowered to investigate.
ISSUE:
* Whether or not CHR has jurisdiction to try and hear the issues involved
HELD:

The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such power; and
that it was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial
agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter.
f In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the
city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed
the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and
established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder
in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.
Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the
worlds first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the
United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
The Spread of Human Rights
From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually
Rome. There the concept of natural law arose, in observation of the fact that people
tended to follow certain unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on
rational ideas derived from the nature of things.
Documents asserting individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right
(1628), the US Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of
todays human rights documents.

To be considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual

conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the
law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or
determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such appeals or
modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the
Commission does not have.
Power to Investigate
The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission the power to
investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It
can exercise that power on its own initiative or on complaint of any person. It may
exercise that power pursuant to such rules of procedure as it may adopt and, in
cases of violations of said rules, cite for contempt in accordance with the Rules of
Court. In the course of any investigation conducted by it or under its authority, it
may grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose
possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine
the truth. It may also request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or
agency in the performance of its functions, in the conduct of its investigation or in
extending such remedy as may be required by its findings.

But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of
justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or
adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical sense, these terms have well
understood and quite distinct meanings.
Investigate vs. Adjudicate
"Investigate," commonly understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or
probe into, research on, study. The dictionary definition of "investigate" is "to
observe or study closely: inquire into systematically. "to search or inquire into: . . . to
subject to an official probe . . .: to conduct an official inquiry." The purpose of
investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information.
Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a
controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of the law to the facts
established by the inquiry.
The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by
step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to examine
and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition;
examination; the taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;" "to inquire; to make an
investigation," "investigation" being in turn describe as "(a)n administrative
function, the exercise of which ordinarily does not require a hearing. 2 Am J2d Adm
L Sec. 257; . . . an inquiry, judicial or otherwise, for the discovery and collection of
facts concerning a certain matter or matters."
"Adjudicate," commonly or popularly understood, means to adjudge, arbitrate,
judge, decide, determine, resolve, rule on, settle. The dictionary defines the term as
"to settle finally (the rights and duties of the parties to a court case) on the merits
of issues raised: . . . to pass judgment on: settle judicially: . . . act as judge." And
"adjudge" means "to decide or rule upon as a judge or with judicial or quasi-judicial
powers: . . . to award or grant judicially in a case of controversy . . . ."
In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority.
To determine finally. Synonymous with adjudge in its strictest sense;" and "adjudge"
means: "To pass on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or
condemn. . . . Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a
judgment."
Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power "to
investigate," cannot and should not "try and resolve on the merits" (adjudicate) the
matters involved in Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775, as it has announced it
means to do; and it cannot do so even if there be a claim that in the administrative
disciplinary proceedings against the teachers in question, initiated and conducted
by the DECS, their human rights, or civil or political rights had been transgressed.
More particularly, the Commission has no power to "resolve on the merits" the
question of (a) whether or not the mass concerted actions engaged in by the
teachers constitute and are prohibited or otherwise restricted by law; (b) whether or
not the act of carrying on and taking part in those actions, and the failure of the
teachers to discontinue those actions, and return to their classes despite the order

to this effect by the Secretary of Education, constitute infractions of relevant rules

and regulations warranting administrative disciplinary sanctions, or are justified by
the grievances complained of by them; and (c) what where the particular acts done
by each individual teacher and what sanctions, if any, may properly be imposed for
said acts or omissions.
Who has Power to Adjudicate?
These are matters within the original jurisdiction of the Sec. of Education, being
within the scope of the disciplinary powers granted to him under the Civil Service
Law, and also, within the appellate jurisdiction of the CSC.
Manner of Appeal
Now, it is quite obvious that whether or not the conclusions reached by the
Secretary of Education in disciplinary cases are correct and are adequately based on
substantial evidence; whether or not the proceedings themselves are void or
defective in not having accorded the respondents due process; and whether or not
the Secretary of Education had in truth committed "human rights violations
involving civil and political rights," are matters which may be passed upon and
determined through a motion for reconsideration addressed to the Secretary
Education himself, and in the event of an adverse verdict, may be reviewed by the
Civil Service Commission and eventually the Supreme Court.

SIMON, JR. vs COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

G.R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994
FACTS:
On July 23, 1990, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued and order,
directing the petitioners "to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North
EDSA pending the resolution of the vendors/squatters complaint before the
Commission" and ordering said petitioners to appear before the CHR.
On September 10, 1990, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss questioning CHR's
jurisdiction and supplemental motion to dismiss was filed on September 18, 1990
stating that Commissioners' authority should be understood as being confined only
to the investigation of violations of civil and political rights, and that "the rights
allegedly violated in this case were not civil and political rights, but their privilege to
engage in business".
On March 1, 1991, the CHR issued and Order denying petitioners' motion and
supplemental motion to dismiss. And petitioners' motion for reconsideration was
denied also in an Order, dated April 25, 1991.
The Petitioner filed a a petition for prohibition, praying for a restraining order and
preliminary injunction. Petitioner also prayed to prohibit CHR from further hearing
and investigating CHR Case No. 90-1580, entitled "Ferno, et.al vs. Quimpo, et.al".
ISSUE:

Is the issuance of an "order to desist" within the extent of the authority and power
of the CRH?
HELD:
No, the issuance of an "order to desist" is not within the extent of authority and
power of the CHR. Article XIII, Section 18(1), provides the power and functions of the
CHR to "investigate, on its own or on complaint by any part, all forms of human
rights violation, involving civil and political rights".
The "order to desist" however is not investigatory in character but an adjudicative
power that the it does not possess. The Constitutional provision directing the CHR to
provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged
whose human rights have been violated or need protection may not be construed to
confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue an restraining order or writ of
injunction, for it were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so.
Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a
writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued by the Judge in any court in which
the action is pending or by a Justice of the CA or of the SC.
The writ prayed for the petition is granted. The CHR is hereby prohibited from
further proceeding with CHR Case No. 90-1580.
Simon vs. Comm. on Human Rights G.R. No. 100150 January 05, 1994
Facts :
Petitioner Mayor Simon asks to prohibit CHR from further hearing and investigating
"demolition case" on vendors of North EDSA.
Constitutional Issue :
Whether the CHR is authorized to hear and decide on the "demolition case" and to
impose a fine for contempt.
Ruling :
Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution empowered the CHR to investigate
all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. The
demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores and carenderia cannot fall within the
compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political rights".
Human rights are the basic rights which inherent in man by virtue of his humanity
and are the same in all parts of the world.
Human rights include civil rights (right to life, liberty and property; freedom of
speech, of the press, of religion, academic freedom; rights of the accused to due
process of law), political rights (right to elect public officials, to be elected to public
office, and to form political associations and engage in politics), social rights (right
to education, employment and social services).
Human rights are entitlements that inherent in the individual person from the sheer
fact of his humanity...Because they are inherent, human rights are not granted by
the State but can only be recognized and protected by it.

Human rights includes all the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights
defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Human rights are rights that pertain to man simply because he is human. They are
part of his natural birth, right, innate and inalienable.
CIVIL RIGHTS - are those that belong to every citizen and are not connected with the
organization or administration of the government.
POLITICAL RIGHTS - are rights to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or administration of the government.