Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Simon Vs CHR Digest
Simon Vs CHR Digest
Human and Cultural Minority Rights Issue: WoN the Commission on Human Rights has jurisdiction
or adjudicatory powers over, or the power to try and decide,
administrative disciplinary sanctions, or are justified by the
grievances complained of by them; and (c) what where the
Case Digests
or hear and determine, certain specific type of cases, like particular acts done by each individual teacher and what
Cariño vs CHR (G.R. No. 96681 Dec 2, 1991) alleged human rights violations involving civil or political sanctions, if any, may properly be imposed for said acts or
rights omissions. These are matters undoubtedly and clearly within
Commission on Human Rights has no jurisdiction or adjudicatory powers the original jurisdiction of the Secretary of Education, being
over, or the power to try and decide, or hear and determine, certain Held: No, CHR have no power to do so. The most that may be within the scope of the disciplinary powers granted to him
specific type of cases, like alleged human rights violations involving civil or under the Civil Service Law, and also, within the appellate
political rights
conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative
power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The Commission
make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights on Human Rights simply has no place in this scheme of
On September 17, 1990, a Monday and a class day, some 800 things. It has no business intruding into the jurisdiction and
violations involving civil and political rights. But fact finding
public school teachers, among them members of the Manila functions of the Education Secretary or the Civil Service
is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial
Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA) and Alliance of Commission. It has no business going over the same ground
function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency
Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook what they described as traversed by the latter and making its own judgment on the
or official. The function of receiving evidence and
"mass concerted actions" to "dramatize and highlight" their questions involved. This would accord success to what may
ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a
plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public well have been the complaining teachers' strategy to abort,
judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such,
authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again frustrate or negate the judgment of the Education Secretary
the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual
been brought to the latter's attention. The "mass actions" in the administrative cases against them which they
conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the
consisted in staying away from their classes, converging at anticipated would be adverse to them. This cannot be done.
authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to
the Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering in peaceable assemblies, It will not be permitted to be done. In any event, the
the end that the controversy may be decided or determined
etc. Through their representatives, the teachers investigation by the Commission on Human Rights would
authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such
participating in the mass actions were served with an order serve no useful purpose. If its investigation should result in
appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This
of the Secretary of Education to return to work in 24 hours or conclusions contrary to those reached by Secretary Cariño, it
function, to repeat, the Commission does not have. Hence it
face dismissal, and a memorandum directing the DECS would have no power anyway to reverse the Secretary's
is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the
officials concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against conclusions. Reversal thereof can only by done by the Civil
power "to investigate," cannot and should not "try and
those who did not comply and to hire their replacements. For Service Commission and lastly by this Court. The only thing
resolve on the merits" (adjudicate) the matters involved in
failure to heed the return-to-work order, the CHR the Commission can do, if it concludes that Secretary Cariño
Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775, as it has announced
complainants (private respondents) were administratively was in error, is to refer the matter to the appropriate
it means to do; and it cannot do so even if there be a claim
charged on the basis of the principal's report and given five Government agency or tribunal for assistance; that would be
that in the administrative disciplinary proceedings against
(5) days to answer the charges. They were also preventively the Civil Service Commission. 35 It cannot arrogate unto
the teachers in question, initiated and conducted by the
suspended for ninety (90) days "pursuant to Section 41 of itself the appellate jurisdiction of the Civil Service
DECS, their human rights, or civil or political rights had been
P.D. 807" and temporarily replaced. The case eventually Commission.
transgressed. More particularly, the Commission has no
resulted in a Decision of Secretary Cariño dated December
power to "resolve on the merits" the question of (a) whether
17, 1990, rendered after evaluation of the evidence as well Simon vs. CHR (G.R. No. 100150 Jan 5, 1994)
or not the mass concerted actions engaged in by the teachers
as the answers, affidavits and documents submitted by the
constitute and are prohibited or otherwise restricted by law;
respondents, decreeing dismissal from the service of CHR’s power to cite for contempt should be understood to apply only to
(b) whether or not the act of carrying on and taking part in
Apolinario Esber and the suspension for nine (9) months of violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure
those actions, and the failure of the teachers to discontinue essential to carry out its investigatorial powers.
Babaran, Budoy and del Castillo.
those actions, and return to their classes despite the order to
this effect by the Secretary of Education, constitute
infractions of relevant rules and regulations warranting
A "Demolition Notice," dated 9 July 1990, signed by Carlos delegates envisioned a Commission on Human Rights that power "to cite or hold any person in direct or indirect
Quimpo (one of the petitioners) in his capacity as an would focus its attention to the more severe cases of human contempt, and to impose the appropriate penalties in
Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers rights violations. Delegate Garcia, for instance, mentioned accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in
Management Council under the Office of the City Mayor, was such areas as the "(1) protection of rights of political the Rules of Court." That power to cite for contempt,
sent to, and received by, the private respondents (being the detainees, (2) treatment of prisoners and the prevention of however, should be understood to apply only to violations of
officers and members of the North EDSA Vendors Association, tortures, (3) fair and public trials, (4) cases of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure
Incorporated). In said notice, the respondents were given a disappearances, (5) salvagings and hamletting, and (6) other essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. To
grace-period of three (3) days (up to 12 July 1990) within crimes committed against the religious." While the exemplify, the power to cite for contempt could be exercised
which to vacate the questioned premises of North EDSA. enumeration has not likely been meant to have any against persons who refuse to cooperate with the said body,
Prior to their receipt of the demolition notice, the private preclusive effect, more than just expressing a statement of or who unduly withhold relevant information, or who decline
respondents were informed by petitioner Quimpo that their priority, it is, nonetheless, significant for the tone it has set. to honor summons, and the like, in pursuing its investigative
stalls should be removed to give way to the "People's Park". In any event, the delegates did not apparently take comfort work. The "order to desist" (a semantic interplay for a
On 12 July 1990, the group, led by their President Roque in peremptorily making a conclusive delineation of the CHR's restraining order) in the instance before us, however, is not
Fermo, filed a letter-complaint (Pinag-samang Sinumpaang scope of investigatorial jurisdiction. They have thus seen it investigatorial in character but prescinds from an
Salaysay) with the CHR against the petitioners, asking the fit to resolve, instead, that "Congress may provide for other adjudicative power that it does not possess.
late CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter to cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the
be addressed to then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr., of Quezon authority of the Commission, taking into account its Marcos vs. Manglapus (G.R. No. 88211 Oct 27, 1989)
City to stop the demolition of the private respondents' stalls, recommendation." In the particular case at hand, there is no
sari-sari stores, and carinderia along North EDSA. The cavil that what are sought to be demolished are the stalls, The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode
complaint was docketed as CHR Case No. 90-1580. On 23 July sari-sari stores and carinderia, as well as temporary shanties,
and the right to travel.
1990, the CHR issued an Order, directing the petitioners "to erected by private respondents on a land which is planned to
desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA be developed into a "People's Park". More than that, the land Issue: WON the President have the power to bar the return of
pending resolution of the vendors/squatters' complaint adjoins the North EDSA of Quezon City which, this Court can former President Marcos and family to the Philippines?
before the Commission" and ordering said petitioners to take judicial notice of, is a busy national highway. The
appear before the CHR. In an Order, dated 25 September consequent danger to life and limb is not thus to be likewise Held: Yes, President Aquino has the power to bar the return
1990, the CHR cited the petitioners in contempt for carrying simply ignored. It is indeed paradoxical that a right which is of former President Marcos and family to the Philippines. It
out the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and claimed to have been violated is one that cannot, in the first must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not
carinderia despite the "order to desist", and it imposed a fine place, even be invoked, if it is, in fact, extant. Be that as it the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or
of P500.00 on each of them. may, looking at the standards hereinabove discoursed vis-a- within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel
vis the circumstances obtaining in this instance, we are not would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved is the
Issue: Whether or not the CHR has jurisdiction: prepared to conclude that the order for the demolition of the right to return to one's country, a totally distinct right under
a) to investigate the alleged violations of the "business stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia of the private international law, independent from although related to the
rights" of the private respondents whose stalls were respondents can fall within the compartment of "human right to travel. The right to return to one's country is not
demolished by the petitioners at the instance and rights violations involving civil and political rights" intended among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,
authority given by the Mayor of Quezon City; by the Constitution. which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to
b) to impose the fine of P500.00 each on the petitioners b) No, on its contempt powers, the CHR is constitutionally travel, but it is our well-considered view that the right to
for contempt; authorized to "adopt its operational guidelines and rules of return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle
procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of
Held: a) Recalling the deliberations of the Constitutional accordance with the Rules of Court." Accordingly, the CHR the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.]
Commission, aforequoted, it is readily apparent that the acted within its authority in providing in its revised rules, its
However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of contempt and undeserving of the very liberties he flounted when he was the
absolute ruler of this land.
and enjoys a different protection under the International government. The preservation of the State the fruition of the
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Contrary to petitioners' people's sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. The Paras(dissenting): There is no dispute that the former President is still a
view, it cannot be denied that the President, upon whom President, sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and Filipino citizen and both under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
executive power is vested, has unstated residual powers to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that and the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, he has the right to return to his
own country except only if prevented by the demands of national safety and
which are implied from the grant of executive power and responsibility. Among the duties of the President under the
national security. Our Armed Forces have failed to prove this danger. They
which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under Constitution, in compliance with his (or her) oath of office, is are bereft of hard evidence, and all they can rely on is sheer speculation.
the Constitution. The powers of the President are not limited to protect and promote the interest and welfare of the True, there is some danger but there is no showing as to the extent. It is
to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and incredible that one man alone together with his family, who had been
ousted from this country by popular will, can arouse an entire country to rise
Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time
in morbid sympathy for the cause he once espoused.
Constitution. The Court cannot close its eyes to present and under present circumstances is in compliance with this
realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from bounden duty. The return of the deposed President, his wife Sarmiento (dissenting): The only issue that saddles the Court is simply:
within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a and children cannot but pose a clear and present danger to "whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution,
separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to public order and safety. the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines." I
therefore take exception to allusions anent "the capacity of the Marcoses to
grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with impunity of stir trouble even from afar." I have legitimate reason to fear that my
military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention Gutierrez (dissenting): There is only one Bill of Rights with the same brethren, in passing judgment on the Marcoses (insofar as their "capacity to
interpretation of liberty and the same guarantee of freedom for both
only a few. The documented history of the efforts of the stir trouble" is concerned), have overstepped the bounds of judicial
unloved and despised persons on one hand and the rest who are not so restraint, or even worse, convicted them without trial. I also find quite
Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the country, as stigmatized on the other. I am, therefore, disturbed by the majority ruling strained what the majority would have as the "real issues" facing the Court:
earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that which declares that it should not be a precedent. We are interpreting the "The right to return to one's country," pitted against "the right of travel and
the return of the Marcoses at this time would only Constitution for only one person and constituting him into a class by himself. freedom of abode", and their supposed distinctions under international law,
The Constitution is a law for all classes of men at all times. To have a person
exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the as if such distinctions, under international law in truth and in fact exist.
as one class by himself smacks of unequal protection of the laws. With all There is only one right involved here, whether under municipal or
State and instigate more chaos. As divergent and discordant due respect for the majority in the Court, I believe that the issue before us international law: the light of travel, whether within one's own country, or
forces, the enemies of the State may be contained. The is one of rights and not of power. Mr. Marcos is insensate and would not live to another, and the right to return thereto. The Constitution itself makes no
military establishment has given assurances that it could if separated from the machines which have taken over the functions of his distinctions; let then, no one make a distinction. Ubi lex non distinguish nec
kidneys and other organs. To treat him at this point as one with full panoply
handle the threats posed by particular groups. But it is the nos distinguere debemus.
of power against whom the forces of Government should be marshalled is
catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses that may prove totally unrealistic. The Government has the power to arrest and punish him.
to be the proverbial final straw that would break the camel's But does it have the power to deny him his right to come home and die
back. With these before her, the President cannot be said to among familiar surroundings? Hence, this dissent. The Bill of Rights provides:
have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of
threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
their return. It will not do to argue that if the return of the (Emphasis supplied, Section 6, Art. 111, Constitution) With all due respect
Marcoses to the Philippines will cause the escalation of for the majority opinion, I disagree with its dictum on the right to travel. I
do not think we should differentiate the right to return home from the right
violence against the State, that would be the time for the to go abroad or to move around in the Philippines. If at all, the right to come
President to step in and exercise the commander-in-chief home must be more preferred than any other aspect of the right to travel.
powers granted her by the Constitution to suppress or stamp
out such violence. The State, acting through the Cruz(dissenting): It is my belief that the petitioner, as a citizen of the
Philippines, is entitled to return to and live — and die — in his own country. I
Government, is not precluded from taking pre-emptive action say this with a heavy heart but say it nonetheless. That conviction is not
against threats to its existence if, though still nascent they diminished one whit simply because many believe Marcos to be beneath
are perceived as apt to become serious and direct.