Cariño v.

Commission on Human Rights, 204 SCRA 483

Facts:

For joining the concerted mass actions of public teachers and for failure to heed the return-to-work
order issued by DECS Secretary Cariño, eight teachers from the Ramon Magsaysay High School, namely
Graciano Budoy, Julieta Babaran, Elsa Ibabao, Helen Lupo, Amparo Gonzales, Luz del Castillo, Elsa Reyes
and Apolinario Esber were administratively charged, preventively suspended for 90 days, and temporarily
replaced. The said eight teachers, led by their counsel, subsequently staged a walkout signifying their
intent to boycott the proceedings. Thereafter, Secretary Cariño rendered a decision ordering the dismissal
from service of Esber, and the 9-month suspensions of Babaran, Budoy, and del Castillo. The eight
teachers then complained to the Commission on Human Rights on the ground that they were denied due
process. Secretary Cariño filed a motion to dismiss with the CHR on the ground that the CHR had no
jurisdiction over the case.

Issue and Ruling:

1. W/N the CHR has the power under the Constitution to try and decide, or hear and determine,
certain specific type of cases, like alleged human rights violations involving civil or political rights.

NO. The CHR was not meant by the Constitution to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this
country. The most that may be conceded to the CHR 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. 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.

The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the CHR the power to investigate all forms of
human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It can exercise that power on its own initiative
or complaint of any person. It may exercise that power pursuant to such rules of procedure as it may
adopt and, in cases of violations of said rules, cite for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. In
the course of any investigation conducted by it or under its authority, it may grant immunity from
prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is
necessary or convenient to determine the truth. It may also request the assistance of any department,
bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions, in the conduct of its investigation or in
extending such remedy as may be required by its findings. But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and
determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate
or adjudge. Whether in the popular or in the technical sense, these terms have well understood and quite
distinct meanings.
Simon v. Commission on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 7

Facts:

A Demolition Notice was sent by the Office of the Quezon City Mayor to the officers and members
of the North EDSA Vendors Association (NEVA), which gave the latter three days to vacate their stalls in
order to give way to the “People’s Park.” The NEVA, led by the President Roque Fermo, filed a letter-
complaint with the CHR, asking that a letter be addressed to then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr. of Quezon City
to stop the demolition of their stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia along EDSA. The CHR subsequently
issued an Order directing the QC Officers to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA
pending resolution of the vendors’ complaint before the Commission.

Notwithstanding said Order, the QC Officers carried out the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores,
and carinderia, prompting the CHR to order the disbursement of financial assistance of not more than
P200,000.00 in favor of the vendors to purchase light housing materials and food under the CHR’s
supervision and again directed the QC Officers to desist from further demolition, with the warning that
violation of said Order would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest. The QC Officers filed a motion to
dismiss, questioning the CHR’s jurisdiction. Subsequently, the CHR cited the QC Officers in contempt for
carrying out further demolition on the stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia despite the order to desist,
and imposed a fine of P500.00 on each of them.

Issues and Ruling:

1. W/N the CHR has jurisdiction to investigate the violation of the rights of those vendors whose stalls
were demolished by the QC Officers at the instance and authority given by N Mayor of QC.

NO. The order for the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia of the vendors does not fall
within the compartment of “human rights violations involving civil and political rights” intended by the
Constitution.

2. W/N the CHR has jurisdiction to impose a fine of P500.00 on each of the QC Officers.

NO. Although 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, and
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, the power to cite in contempt should be
understood to apply only to violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure
essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. The order to desist is not investigatorial in character but
prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess.