CARINO VS CHR

204 SCRA 483 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – The Constitutional Commissions –
Commission on Human Rights – Adjudicatory Power of the CHR
On September 17, 1990, some 800 public school teachers in Manila did not attend work and
decided to stage rallies in order to air grievances. As a result thereof, eight teachers were
suspended from work for 90 days. The issue was then investigated, and on December 17,
1990, DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño ordered the dismissal from the service of one teacher
and the suspension of three others. The case was appealed to the Commission on Human
Rights. In the meantime, the Solicitor General filed an action for certiorari regarding the case
and prohibiting the CHR from continuing the case. Nevertheless, CHR continued trial and
issued a subpoena to Secretary Cariño.
ISSUE: Whether or not CHR has the power to try and decide and determine certain specific
cases such as the alleged human rights violation involving civil and political rights.
HELD: No. The CHR is not competent to try such case. It has no judicial power. It can only
investigate all forms of human rights violation involving civil and political rights but it cannot
and should not try and decide on the merits and matters involved therein. The CHR is hence
then barred from proceeding with the trial.

SIMON, JR. vs COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

G.R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994
Topic: Personal Dignity and Human Rights (Sec. 11, 1987 Constitution)

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.

EPZA vs. Commission on Human Rights Case Digest

EPZA vs. Commission on Human Rights
G.R. No. 101476 April 14, 1992

Facts: EPZA (petitioner) purchase a parcel of land from Filoil Refinery Corporation, and before
petitioner could take possession of the area, several individuals had entered the premises and planted
agricultural products therein without permission from EPZA or its predecessor, Filoil. EPZA paid a
P10,000-financial-assistance to those who accepted the same and signed quitclaims. Among them
were private respondents (TERESITA VALLES, LORETO ALEDIA). Ten years later, respondent
Teresita, Loreto and Pedro, filed in the respondent Commission on Human Rights (CHR) a joint
complaint praying for "justice and other reliefs and remedies". Alleged in their complaint was the
information that EPZA bulldozed the area with acts in violation of their human rights. CHR issued an
Order of injunction commanding EPZA to desist from committing such acts . Two weeks later, EPZA
again bulldozed the area. They allegedly handcuffed private respondent Teresita Valles, pointed their
firearms at the other respondents, and fired a shot in the air. CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista
issued another injunction Order reiterating her first order and expanded it to include the Secretary of
Public Works and Highways, the contractors, and their subordinates.

EPZA filed in the CHR a motion to lift the Order of Injunction for lack of authority to issue injunctive
writs and temporary restraining orders, but same was denied by the Commission (CHR).

Hence, EPZA, filed in SC this special civil action of certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the
issuance of a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, alleging that the CHR acted in excess of
its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued
ordering the CHR to cease and desist from enforcing and/or implementing the questioned injunction
orders.

In its comment on the petition, the CHR asked for the immediate lifting of the restraining order. The
CHR contends that it’s principal function under Section 18, Art. 13 of the 1987 Constitution, "is not
limited to mere investigation" because it is mandated, among others to 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 under privileged
whose human rights have been violated or need protection.

Issue: WON CHR have 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.

Held: Petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The orders of injunction issued by the
respondent Commission on Human Right are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the TRO which this
Court issued is made PERMANENT.

In Hon. Isidro Cariño, et al. vs. Commission on Human Rights, et al., we held that the CHR is not a
court of justice nor even a quasi-judicial 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. 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 definitely,
subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the
Commission does not have.”

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
only by the Constitution or by law". It is never derived by implication.

The "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial
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. It may also be granted by the judge of a Court of First Instance
[now Regional Trial Court] in any action pending in an inferior court within his district." (Sec. 2, Rule
58, Rules of 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.