HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ET. AL.

NARVASA, J.

FACTS:

Herein private respondents were teachers at the Ramon Magsaysay High

School who took part in the “concerted mass actions” to dramatize and
highlight their public plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public
authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been brought to
the latter’s attention.

For failure to heed the return to work order, they were administratively
charged and were preventively suspended for 90 days. An investigation
committee was formed to hear the charges in accordance with PD 807. The
Committee denied their motion for suspension as well as their motion for
reconsideration. After which, they staged a walkout signifying their intention to
boycott the entire proceeding. Thereafter, Secretary Carino rendered a
decision decreeing the dismissal from the service of Apolinario Esber and the
suspension for nine months of the others.

In the meantime, Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA)

filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC of Manila against Secretary Carino
which was dismissed. Later, in attempt to nullify said dismissal, MPSTA went
to the Supreme Court on alleging violation of the striking teachers’ right to due
process and peaceable assembly. The Alliance of Concerned Teachers filed a
similar petition before the Supreme Court. The respondent teachers, on the
other hand, submitted sworn statements to the CHR to complain that while
they were participating in peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of
their replacements as teachers, allegedly without notice and for reasons
unknown to them.

In connection therewith, the Commission on Human Rights scheduled a

dialogue and sent subpoena requiring Secretary Carino’s attendance.
Thereafter, the Commission proceeded to hear the case. Secretary Carino
through the OSG filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the same was denied
by the Commission and required them to submit their counter-affidavits after
which the Commission shall proceed to hear and resolve the case on the
merits.

The Commission claims that it was empowered to investigate violations of

the teachers civil and political rights. Secretary Carino, through the OSG,
commenced the present action of certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE:

Whether the Commission on Human Rights has jurisdiction on

adjudicatory power over alleged human rights violations involving civil or
political rights
HELD:

NO, the Court declares that the Commission on Human Rights have no
power to adjudicate and the Constitution does not meant for the Commission
to be another court or quasi-judicial agency or duplicate, much less take over
the functions of the latter.

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. To be considered such, it 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.

Among the powers and functions granted to the Commission by the

Constitution, only the power to investigate all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights bears any resemblance to adjudication or
adjudgment, but it cannot try and decide cases as courts of justice or even
quasi-judicial bodies to. To investigate is not to adjudicate.

Therefore, 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 the Striking Teachers Case as it has announced it means to do,
even if there be a claim that in the administrative disciplinary proceedings
against the teachers in question, initiated and conducted by the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports, their human rights, or civil and political rights
have been transgressed. These are matters within the original jurisdiction of
the Secretary of Education, being within the scope of the disciplinary powers
granted to him under the Civil Service Law and within the appellate jurisdiction
of the Civil Service Commission.

The petition was granted and the Commission on Human Rights are
prohibited to hear and resolve the case.
Simon vs CHR

Facts:

- A demolition notice was signed by Quimpo who is one of the petitioners

in this case in his capacity as an executive officer under the office of the City
Mayor of Quezon city. It was sent to the North Edsa Vendors Association
wherein in the said notice, they are required to vacate the premises within 3
days and failure in doing so would result to demolition of their stalls. This was
to pave way for the People's park.

- The president of the association, Roque Fermo then sent a letter to CHR
asking for help wherein he requested CHR to send a letter to the mayor of
quezon city to stop the demolition of their stalls, sari sari stores and carinderia
along north edsa. An order was then issued by chr which directed the
petitioners to desist from demolishing the stalls.

- It was futile however since the petitioners started to demolish the stalls
and in response to this, CHR then ordered for the disbursement and financial
assistance amounting to 200,000 pesos for the private respondents and
stated that failure of doings so would hold them in contempt and arrest.

- A motion to dismiss was then filed by the petitioners contending that the
complainants were independent bussiness entrepreneurs who are illegally
occupying north edsa and that the City Mayor of Quezon City (had) the sole
and exclusive discretion and authority whether or not a certain business
establishment (should) be allowed to operate within the jurisdiction of Quezon
City, to revoke or cancel a permit, if already issued, upon grounds clearly
specified by law and ordinance.

- Moreover, it was also contended by the petitioners that the

Commission’s 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.

- In response to this, CHR contended that they should be considered a a

quasi-judicial body with the power to provide appropriate legal measures for
the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines.

- After hearing, the lower court dismissed the petitioners motion and ruled in
favor of CHR, hence this petition.

Issue:
Whether CHR has jurisdiction over the case

Whether CHR has adjudicatory powers

Ruling:

1. No

CHR has no jurisdiction over the matters of the case. The Supreme Court
held that the Commission on Human Rights…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. During the
deliberation of the Constitutional Commission, the delegates envisioned the
CHR would focus its attention to the more severe cases of human rights
violations such as, but not limited to,

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. Salvages and hamletting; and
6. Other crimes committed against the religious.

In the case at hand, there is no doubt that what are sought to be

demolished are the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia, as well as temporary
shanties, erected by private respondents on land which is planned to be
developed as People’s Park.

The land adjoins the North EDSA of Quezon City which, this Court can
take judicial notice of, is a busy national highway. The consequent danger to
life and limb is not thus to be likewise simply ignored. It is indeed paradoxical
that a right which is claimed to have been violate is one that cannot, in the first
place, be invoked, if it is, in fact, extant.

2. No.

In Carino v. Commission on Human Rights, the supreme court ruled that

CHR 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 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.

The CHR is constitutionally authorized to cite or hold any person in direct

or indirect contempt. An “order to desist”, however, is not investigatorial in
character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that the CHR does not
possess.