Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Who we are
CHR is an “A” accredited NHRI, fully complying with the Paris Principles adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly in 1995. As an NHRI, the Commission upholds six
fundamental characteristics — independence, pluralism, broad mandate, transparency,
accessibility, and operational efficiency.
HISTORY
The CHR was created as a response to the atrocities committed during Martial Law.
When the 1987 Philippine Constitution was drafted, Article XIII on Social Justice and
Human Rights clearly defined the creation of the Commission.
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 inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth and
political power for the common good.
(Sec. 1, Art. XIII, Philippine Constitution)
MISSION
As conscience of government and the people, we seek truth in human rights issues. As
beacon of truth, we make people aware of their rights, and guide government and
society towards actions that respect the rights of all, particularly those who cannot
defend themselves — the disadvantaged, marginalized, and vulnerable.
MANTRA
CHR: Dignity of all
The counterpart provision in the 1935 Constitution uses the phrase may not be
reappointed and the phrase appears only once. Section 1, Article XI of the 1935
Constitution provides:
To repeat, while the first sentence of Section 1, Article XI of the 1935 Constitution
contains the words may not be reappointed, the succeeding sentences do not. In
contrast, the words without reappointment appears in the first and second sentences
of Section 1(2), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. This difference is pivotal in the
resolution of the present case.
The framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately disallowed a situation where, in the
words of Commissioner Vicente Foz, the appointee serves only for less than seven
years, (and) would be entitled to reappointment, which was the case of Visarra v.
Miraflor, to the effect that x x x in cases where the appointee serves only for less than
3
Thus, the framers of the 1987 Constitution added the words without reappointment in
the second sentence of Section 1(2) of Article IX-D precisely to overturn Visarra, in
particular the concurring opinion of Justice Bautista. The foregoing exchange between
Commissioners Davide and Foz clearly proves that the framers specifically added the
words without reappointment twice precisely to foreclose the possibility of an
appointee, who has served for less than seven years, being reappointed to complete a
seven-year term.
This Court can no longer resurrect Visarra because the 1987 Constitution itself has
rejected Visarra, particularly, in the words of Commissioner Foz, the concurring
opinion of Justice Angelo Bautista. In his concurring opinion, Justice Bautista
concluded that the appointment of Associate Commissioner Garcia to Chairman of
the Commission is valid. This Court has no power to undo what the framers have so
clearly written in the Constitution. To repeat, the framers of the 1987 Constitution
expressly rejected the Visarra ruling, in particular the concurring opinion of
Justice Bautista, and instead adopted the dissenting opinions of Justices Roberto
Concepcion and JBL Reyes.