2Simon v CHR
Philippines. In April 25, 1991 petitioner’s MR was denied. The SC directed
FACTS
On July 9 1990, a demolition notice was signed by Carlos Quimpo in his
capacity as an Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers
Management Council under the Office of the City Mayor, was sent to, and
received by, the private respondents In said notice, the respondents were
given a grace-period of three (3) days (up to 12 July 1990) within which to
vacate the questioned premises of North EDSA. Prior to their receipt of the
demolition notice, the private respondents were informed by petitioner
Quimpo that their stalls should be removed to give way to the "People's
Park".
On 12 July 1990, the group, led by their President Roque Fermo, filed a
letter-complaint with the CHR against the petitioners, asking the late CHR
Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter to be addressed to then
Mayor Brigido Simon Jr. of Quezon City to stop the demolition of the private
respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia along North EDSA. On 23
July 1990, the CHR issued an Order, directing the petitioners "to desist from
demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending resolution of the
vendors/squatters' complaint before the Commission" and ordering said
petitioners to appear before the CHR.
TA motion to dismiss, dated 10 September 1990, questioned CHR's
jurisdiction. On 18 September 1990 a supplemental motion to dismiss was
filed by the petitioners, stating that the Commission's authority should be
understood as being confined only to the investigation of violations of civil
and political rights, and that but their privilege to engage in business.
In an order dated 25 September 1990, the CHR cited the petitioners in
contempt for carrying out the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and
carinderia despite the "order to desist", and it imposed a fine.
On 1 March 1991, the CHR issued an Order, denying petitioners' motion to
dismiss and supplemental motion to dismiss. The CHR opined that they be
considered as a quasi-judicial body with the power to provide appropriate
legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the
the CHR to cease and desist from hearing the aforementioned case.
ISSUE: WON the CHR’s jurisdiction is confined only to the investigation of
violations of civil and political rights
RULING
1987 Constitution on CHR powers and functions:
Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human
rights violations involving civil and political rights;
Which the court does not agree with; only the 1st function bears a
resemblance of the CHR having the power to adjudicate; was not meant to
be a quasi-judicial agency or to be another court, much less take over the
function of the legitimate courts. Civil rights are those that belong to the
citizens of the state, connected with the government; right to property,
marriage, equal protection of the law, involuntary servitude, etc. Political
rights are those that allow a person to participate in the establishment of
government; suffrage, petition, hold public office
We are not prepared to conclude that the order for the demolition of the
stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia of the private respondents can fall
within the compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and
political rights" intended by the Constitution.
The Commission does have legal standing to endorse, for appropriate
action, its findings and recommendations to any appropriate agency of
government. 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
Quasi-judicial body – possesses a sort-of judicial power since they can
conduct hearings and investigations concerning disputes or infractions of
rules and regulations and make decisions on them; judicial in character but
not constitutionally defined.