G.R. No.
100150 January 5, 1994
BRIGIDO R. SIMON, JR., CARLOS QUIMPO, CARLITO ABELARDO, AND
GENEROSO OCAMPO, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ROQUE FERMO, AND OTHERS AS JOHN
DOES, respondents.
NATURE:
In this case, the authority and power of the Commission on Human Rights ("CHR") is in
question. The petitioners ask us to prohibit CHR from further hearing and investigating CHR
Case No. 90-1580, entitled "Fermo, et al. vs. Quimpo, et al."
FACTS:
Office of the City Mayor issued a "Demolition Notice," dated 9 July 1990, signed by Carlos
Quimpo (one of the petitioners) in his capacity as an Executive Officer of the Quezon City
Integrated Hawkers Management Council.
The Demolition Notice was received by the officers and members of the North EDSA Vendors
Association, Incorporated. Their stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia along North EDSA
would be removed to give way to the "People's Park". 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.
On 12 July 1990, the group, led by their President Roque Fermo, filed a letter-complaint (Pinag-
samang Sinumpaang Salaysay) 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 said demolition.
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.
On 28 July 1990, the petitioners carried out/executed the demolition of private
respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia, hence, the CHR ordered the disbursement
of financial assistance of not more than P200,000.00 in favor of the private respondents to
purchase light housing materials and food under the Commission's supervision and again
directed the petitioners to "desist from further demolition, with the warning that violation of
said order would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest."
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of the CHR, said motion
also averred that:
-this case came about due to the alleged violation by the (petitioners) of the Inter-
Agency Memorandum of Agreement whereby Metro-Manila Mayors agreed on a
moratorium in the demolition of the dwellings of poor dwellers in Metro-Manila;
- that the complainants in this case (were) not poor dwellers but independent business
entrepreneurs even this Honorable Office admitted in its resolution of 1 August 1990 that
the complainants are indeed, vendors;
-that the complainants (were) occupying government land, particularly the sidewalk of
EDSA corner North Avenue, Quezon City
-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.
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 "the rights
allegedly violated in this case (were) not civil and political rights, (but) their privilege to
engage in business.”
CHR issued 2 Orders:
1. 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 of
P500.00 on each of them.
2. the Commission on Human Rights under its constitutional mandate had jurisdiction
over the complaint filed by the squatters-vendors who complained of the gross
violations of their human and constitutional rights. The motion to dismiss should be
and is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
-CHR further claims that the commission should be (considered) a quasi-judicial
body with the power to provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of
human rights of all persons within the Philippines,
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, the case elevated to the
SC.
ISSUE:
W/N the CHR has jurisdiction “to hear the case”, “issue a restraining order/writ of
injunction/order to desist” or “impose penalties/fines”. (NO)
RULING:
*The powers and functions22 of the Commission are defined by the 1987 Constitution, thus: to —
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, 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 protection;
xxx xxx xxx
*In Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights, SC stated 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.
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 definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of
review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does not
have.
*In Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on Human Rights:
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, it 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.
Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the
Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ of preliminary
injunction) which the CHR may seek from 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. . . . 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 interests of a party thereto, and for no
other purpose.".
The Commission does have legal standing to indorse, for appropriate action, its findings
and recommendations to any appropriate agency of government.
* On its contempt powers, the CHR is constitutionally authorized to "adopt its operational
guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance
with the Rules of Court." Accordingly, the CHR acted within its authority in providing in its
revised rules, its power "to cite or hold any person in direct or indirect contempt, and to impose
the appropriate penalties in accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the
Rules of Court." That power to cite for contempt, however, should be understood to apply
only to violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure
essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. To exemplify, the power to cite for
contempt could be exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate with the said body, or who
unduly withhold relevant information, or who decline to honor summons, and the like, in
pursuing its investigative work. The "order to desist" (a semantic interplay for a
restraining order) in the instance before us, however, is not investigatorial in
character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess.
WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for in this petition is GRANTED. The Commission on Human
Rights is hereby prohibited from further proceeding with CHR Case No. 90-1580 and from
implementing the P500.00 fine for contempt. The temporary restraining order heretofore
issued by this Court is made permanent.
