Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
a. the CHRs authority should be understood as being confined only to the investigation of
violations of civil and political rights. The rights allegedly violated in this case were not
civil and political but their privilege to engage in business.
b. The CHR has no jurisdiction
c. This came about due to the alleged violation by the QC Officers of the Inter-Agency
Memorandum of Agreement whereby Metro Manila Mayors agreed on moratorium in the
demolition of the dwellings of poor dwellers in Metro Manila
But there was no violation since the Vendors were not poor dwellers but
independent business entrepreneurs
d. The Vendors were occupying government land, the sidewalk of EDSA corner North Ave
e. QC Mayor had the sole and exclusive jurisdiction and authority whether or not a certain
business should be allowed to operate within the city
8. CHR ORDERS: The CHR denied the MTD and cited the QC Officers in contempt for carrying out
the demolition despite the order to desist and imposed a P500 fine
a. CHR under its constitutional mandate had jurisdiction over the complaint of the Vendors
who complained of the gross violations of their human and constitutional rights
b. It was not the intention of the Con Comm to create only a paper tiger only to
investigating civil and political rights; the CHR should be considered a quasijudicial body with power to provide appropriate legal measures for protection of human
rights of all persons
c. Right to earn a living is a right essential to ones right to development, to life, and to
dignity
9. The QC Officers went to the SC on a petition for prohibition.
ISSUE & HELD: WON the CHR should continue with its proceedings. NO. The CHR is not a quasijudicial body and only has investigative powers.
RATIO:
Powers and functions:1
The powers and functions of the CHR are defined by the 1987 Constitution. It is not a quasi-judicial
body. The CHR was created by the 1987 Constitution; formally constituted by Pres. Aquino via EO
163
The CHR is NOT a quasi-judicial body Carino v. CHR:
a. Only the first of the enumerated powers and functions bears any resemblance to
adjudication or adjudgment but this is not synonymous to adjudicatory power itself
b. CHR was not meant by the Constitution to be another court or quasi-judicial body
c. The most that can be conceded is that it may investigate
i.
But fact finding is not adjudication
Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights Adopt its
operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court
2.
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
3.
Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities
4.
Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights
5.
Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of
human rights, or their families
6.
Monitor the Philippine Governments compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights
7.
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 in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority
8.
Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions
9.
Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with the law
10. Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law
ii.
iii.
To be adjudicative, there must be authority of applying the law to the end that the
controversy may be decided.
The CHR has no such function
violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its
investigatorial powers. In this case, the order to desist (which is really a TRO) is not investigatorial
in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess