11/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 496

VOL. 496, JULY 21, 2006 257

The Nature of the Commission on Human Rights As
A Constitutionally Created Body

ANNOTATION

THE NATURE OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AS

A CONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED BODY
By
*
JORGE R. COQUIA

I. Introductory, p. 257
II. The Functions of the CHR, p. 258
III. The CHR has no Adjudicative Powers, p. 259
IV. The CHR has Powers to Investigate only Civil or
Political Rights-The Narrow Concept of Human Rights
in the Philippine Constitution, p. 260
V. The CHR Has No Enforcement Powers, p. 262
VI. Conclusion, p. 263

1. Introductory

When the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) was created under

Article XIII, Section 17 of the Philippine Constitution, most
Filipinos entertained high hopes that at last there is a now body that
can prevent human rights violation and protect victims thereof. The
CHR was formally constituted under Executive Order No. 163
(1987). In the course of events with several decisions of the
Supreme Court, the CHR, although a constitutionally created office
is after all not a constitutional commission as those enumerated in
Article IX of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc85b27d21d526b8b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
11/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 496

* Member, Board of Editorial Consultants, Supreme Court Reports Annotated

(SCRA).

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Nature of the Commission on Human Rights As
A Constitutionally Created Body

the Constitution, namely, the Civil Service Commission, the

Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit. The CHR
has no enforcement powers. It cannot even prosecute violators of
human rights. What is more, it has limited fiscal autonomy as ruled
in Commission on Human Rights Employees Association vs.
Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 155336, July 21, 2006, 496
SCRA 226.
The case concerned a petition of the Commission on Human
Rights Employees Association to seek a clarification of the power
of the CHR on its autonomous fiscal autonomy. The Supreme Court
ruled that under the Constitution, only the judiciary, the
constitutional commissions and the office of the Ombudsman enjoy
fiscal autonomy.

II. The Functions of the CHR

Not considered as constitutional commission, although independent

body, its main functions are only to:

1. Investigate, on its own or on complaint, all forms of human

rights violations involving civil and political rights;
2. Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and
cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with
the Rules of Court;
3. Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of
human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well
as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged
whose human rights have been violated or need of
protection;
4. Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention
facilities;
5. Establish a continuing program of research, education, and
information to enhance respect for the primacy of human
rights;

259

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc85b27d21d526b8b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
11/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 496

VOL. 496, JULY 21, 2006 259

The Nature of the Commission on Human Rights As
A Constitutionally Created Body

6. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote

human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of
violations of human rights, or their families;
7. Monitor the Philippine Governments compliance with
international treaty obligations on human rights;
8. 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
in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
9. Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office or
agency in the performance of its functions;
10. Appoints its officers and employees in accordance with
law; and
11. Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided
by law.

III. The CHR has no Adjudicative Powers

In Cario vs. Commission on Human Rights, 204 SCRA 483 (1991),

the Supreme Court held that the most that may be conceded to the
Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may
investigate, receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards
claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights.
But as a fact-finding body, it has no adjudicative powers 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. To be considered such, the faculty of
receiving evidence and making factual conclusion 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,

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Nature of the Commission on Human Rights As
A Constitutionally Created Body

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc85b27d21d526b8b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
11/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 496

finally and definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of review

as may be provided by law.
The Cario case involved the power of the CHR to investigate
and adjudicate a petition of public school teachers who were ordered
dismissed or suspended by Secretary Cari o of the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports for declaring a strike and refused to
attend classes. The Court held that the Commission on Human
Rights having merely the power to investigate, cannot and should
not try and resolve on the merits 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.
These are matters undoubtedly and clearly within the original
scope of the disciplinary powers granted to him under the Civil
Service Law, and also, within the appellate jurisdiction of the Civil
Service Commission.

IV. The CHR has Powers to Investigate only Civil or Political

Rights-The Narrow Concept of Human Rights in the Philippine
Constitution

As human society has developed and progressed, and with the

increase of multifarious activities, especially in the field of
economic development, the concept of human rights has been
broadened and covers practically all aspects of human activities in
order that men can live as free and fully developed human beings.
Quite unfortunate, however, the 1986 Philippine Constitution has
mentioned only civil and political rights. Under Art. XIII, Sec. 18
(1) of the Constitution, the Commission on Human Rights is
empowered to investigate all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights. Apparently, the delegates who
drafted the 1986 Constitution were not aware of the trend of broad
concepts of human rights as envisioned in the International Bill of
Rights

261

VOL. 496, JULY 21, 2006 261

The Nature of the Commission on Human Rights As
A Constitutionally Created Body

consisting of the International Covenant in Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights and the various international instruments on human
rights adopted by the United Nations and other international
organizations. The delegates during the debate emphasized that at
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc85b27d21d526b8b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
11/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 496

the moment, the Constitution is limited only to civil and political

rights (Records of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 2, pp. 722-
723, 738-739). And yet at that time, there were already 23
international instruments of human rights with protocols. Only
recently, the Convention on forced or involuntary disappearance of
persons was approved by the United Nations and is now open for
ratification.
Thus far, we already ratified 17 Human Rights Convention. The
Philippine Supreme Court was of the opinion that the function of the
CHR is only limited to cases involving civil and political rights
(Cario vs. Commission on Human Rights, 204 SCRA 483 [1991]).
The same ruling was made in Simon vs. Commission on Human
Rights, 229 SCRA 117 [1994], when the Court said that it was
apparent that the constitutional delegated who drafted the
Constitution have envisioned a Commission on Human Rights that
would focus its attention to the more severe cases of human rights
violations. Constitutional delegate Garcia, for instance, mentioned
such areas as (1) protection of rights of political detainees, (2)
treatment of prisoners and the prevention of tortures, (3) fair and
public trials, (4) cases of disappearances, (5) salvaging and
hamletting, and (6) other crimes committed against the religious.
While the enumeration has not likely been meant to have any
preclusive effect, more than just expressing a statement of priority, it
is, nonetheless, significant for the tone it has set. In any event, the
delegates did not apparently take scope of the investigatorial
jurisdiction. They have thus seen it fit to resolve, instead, that
Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights
that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into
account its recommendation.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Nature of the Commission on Human Rights As
A Constitutionally Created Body

The Court held in the Simon case that the demolition of stalls, sari-
sari stores and carinderia does not fall under the compartment of
human rights violations involving civil and political rights
envisioned by the Constitution. These rights fall under the
economic, social and cultural rights, and yet, the Philippines had
already ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights on 7 May 1974. Even the Supreme Court was not
aware of this Convention.
It is not surprising therefore that the Commission on Human
Rights in its earlier Resolutions have limited its function only on
civil and political rights, Resolution No. A89-109, July 19, 1989 of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc85b27d21d526b8b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
11/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 496

the Commission limited its jurisdiction only to civil and political

rights for purposes of investigation.
The Supreme Court held that the order to desist, however, is
not investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative
power that it does not possess.

V. The CHR Has No Enforcement Powers

The problem of the more effective enforcement of human rights as

well as the speedy prosecution of violations of human rights cannot
be solved by merely giving the Commission on Human Rights
without prosecutory powers. There are some countries that have
established quasi-judicial bodies to try and adjudicate human rights
violations, although they are not constitutional bodies. They derive
their powers from statutory legislation or under a human rights code
defining the jurisdiction of said quasi-judicial human rights bodies.
Even the United Nations Commission on Human Rights itself has no
adjudicatory powers. It has powers only to inquire into violations of
human rights and make recommendations. The Optional Protocols to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel and Degrading
Punishment have established procedures on complaints for
violations of human rights. Through committees established, they
conduct inquir-

263

VOL. 496, JULY 21, 2006 263

The Nature of the Commission on Human Rights As
A Constitutionally Created Body

ies. They may settle the cases amicably. In the event that not
satisfactory solution is arrived at, the committee submits their report
to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. At most, the
reports of the committee are only recommendatory. It is up to the
state concerned in case of a finding of human rights violations to
comply with its obligations under the international instruments on
human rights. In that sense, the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights is a worldwide watchdog on human rights.
In fine, unless the Philippine Constitution is amended, the
Commission on Human Rights can only remain as an effective
watchdog composed ideally of qualified individuals of high moral
character with recognized competence in the field of human rights
and are known to possess independent minds in making findings and
recommendations for appropriate action to the government agency
concerned. It may render human rights advisory opinions which can
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc85b27d21d526b8b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
11/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 496

be respected and honored. That is what the framers of the 1987

Constitution have envisioned. But most findings and
recommendations are ignored even by the government agencies.

VI. Conclusion

In fine, the hopes and aspirations of most Filipino people that the
Commission on Human Rights as a constitutional independent body,
is an effective agency to protect the victims of human rights is not
realized. The CHR has no enforcement powers, no adjudicatory
powers and lastly, as the Supreme Court decision under annotation,
it has limited fiscal autonomy. One member of the Court has said, it
is a toothless tiger.
The main important function is to investigate all forms of
violations of human rights. The Supreme Court itself has said that
the CHR can investigate only violations of civil and political rights.

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Nature of the Commission on Human Rights As
A Constitutionally Created Body

The CHR as a constitutional independent body to investigate all

forms of violations of human rights has not been recognized by the
government. Only recently, the President of the Republic appointed
an Ad Hoc Commission to investigate and submit report on the spate
of killings of journalists, militant activists and civilians. Criticisms
have been aired why the President had to constitute a special body
for that purpose when there is the Commission on Human Rights an
independent constitutional body the very office created by the
Constitution to investigate violations of human rights. Does it mean
that the President does not trust the CHR?
It is possible that the findings of the special commission created
by the President might be in conflict with the results of the findings
of the Commission on Human Rights. Whose findings will the
President follow?

o0o

265

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc85b27d21d526b8b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
11/17/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 496

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc85b27d21d526b8b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8