XIV.
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
A. CONCEPT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
Sec. 1, Art. XIII, the Congress shall give
highest priority to the enactment of measures
that protect and enhance the right of all the
people to human dignity, reduce social,
economic and political inequalities, and remove
cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth
and political power for the common good. To
this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition,
ownership, use and disposition of property and
its increments.
The promotion of social justice shall
include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and
self-reliance (Sec 2, Art. XIII).
In Astudillo v. Board of Directors PHHC
73 SCRA 15, while the pursuit of social justice can
have revolutionary effect, it cannot justify
breaking the law. While the State is mandated to
promote social justice and to maintain adequate
social services in the field of housing, this cannot
be interpreted to mean that squatting has
been legalized. The States solicitude for the
destitute and the have-nots does not mean it
should tolerate usurpation of property, public or
private.
B. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
The Commission on Human Rights,
composed of Chairman and four members who
must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines
and a majority of whom shall be members of the
Bar.
The term of office and other
qualifications and disabilities of the Members of
the Commission shall be provided by law.
i) The power to appoint the Chairman
and members of the Commission is vested in the
President of the Philippines, without need of
confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments (Mary Concepcion Bautista v.
Salonga, supra.).
ii) The Commission on Human Rights
does not enjoy fiscal autonomy. It does not
belong to the species of constitutional
commissions under Art. IX of the Constitution
(Commission on Human Rights Employees
Association v. Commission on Human Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004)
Powers and Functions of the Commission
(Sec. 18, Art. XIII)
a) In Carino v. Commission on Human
Rights, G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991, on the
question of whether or not the Commission on
Human Rights has jurisdiction or adjudicatory
powers over certain specific types of cases, like
alleged human rights violations involving civil or
political rights, the Supreme Court said that it
does not; 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.
It is conceded, however, that the
Commission 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.
Having merely the power to investigate,
the Commission cannot and should not try and
resolve on the merits the matters involved in
Striking Teachers HRC Case 90775, 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.
 XIV. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

b) The Commission on Human Rights,

not being a court of justice, cannot issue writs of
injunction or a restraining order against
supposed violators of human rights (EPZA v.
Commission on Human Rights, 208 SCRA 125).

c) In Simon v. Commission on Human

Rights, 229 SCRA 117, the Supreme Court ruled
that evicting squatters is not a violation of
human rights. Also reiterated was the rule that
the. CHR has no jurisdiction to issue the order
to desist (a semantic interplay of a restraining
order) inasmuch as such order is not
investigatorial in character but prescinds from an
adjudicatory power it does not possess.

Reference:
OUTLINE REVIEWER; POLITICAL LAW by
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura
(2014)