Hanna Dominique H.
Besa, 1-E
Cario (Secretary of DECS) v. CHR
FACTS:
On a Monday and a class day, some
800 public school teachers, among them
member of the Manila Public School
Teachers Association (MPSTA) and
Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT)
undertook mass concerted actions to
dramatize and highlight their plight
resulting from the alleged failure of the
public authorities to act upon grievances
that had time and again been brough to
their attention. They stayed away from
their classes, converged at the
Liwasang Bonifacio, gathered in
peaceable assemblies, and so on.
The teachers were served with an order
of the Secretary of Education to return to
work in 24 hours or face dismissal, and
a memorandum directing the DECS
officials concered to initiate dismissal
proceedings against those who did not
comply and to hire their replacements.
Despite this, the mass actions continued
into the week with more teachers joining
in the days that followed.
Eight of the private respondents,
teachers at Ramon Magsaysay High
School, Manila agreed to support the
non-political demands of the MPSTA.
For failure to heed the return-to-work
order,private respondents, CHR
complainants, were administratively
charged on the basis of the principals
report and given 5 days to answer the
charges. They were suspended for 90
days pursuant to Sec. 41 of PD 807, and
temporarily replaced
The CHR complainants filed for a motion
for suspension of administrative
proceedings which was denied, and so
they staged a walkout signifying their
intent to boycott the entire proceedings.
The MPSTA filed a petition for certiorari
to the SC against petitioner Cario,
initially dismissed by the RTC, on the
alleged violation of their right to due
process and peaceable assmebly. ACT
filed a similar petition with the SC.
The resp. teachers submitted sworn
statements to the CHR to complain that
while participating in the mass actions,
their replacements as teachers was
allegedly without notice and
consequently for reasons completely
unknown to them.
Sec. Cario filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints on the grounds that it states
no cause of action and that the CHR has
no jurisdiction over the case.
Judgments affecting the striking
teachers decreed the dismissal of one
respondent and the suspension for 9
months of the others that it would be
better to take to the Civil Service
Commission on the matters complained
of, and ruling Carios orders prima facie
lawful.
The CHR denied Carios motion to
dismiss, clearing its postion to determine
to adjudicate the same issues passed
upon by the DECS,
ISSUE: W/N the CHR has the power under
the Constitution to do so like a court of
justice or evena quasi-judicial agency
HELD: The CHR has no such power; and
it was not meant by the fundamental law
to be another court or quasi-judicial
agency, or duplicate the functions of the
latter.
At most, it may investigate, receive
evidence and make findings of fact as
regards to claimed human rights
violations involving civil and political
rights.
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 issues on whether the Secretary of
Education committed human rights
violations involving civil and political rights
are matters that may be passed upon and
determined through a motion for
reconsidereation addressed to the
Secretary of Education himself, reviewed by
the Civil Service Commision, and eventually,
the Supreme Court.