Carino v. Commission on Human Rights (1991)
An investigation committee was formed
Narvasa, J.
Plaintiff: Casidro Carino in his capacity as Secretary of
Department of Educations, Culture, and Sports; Dr.
Erlinda Lolarga in her capacity as Superintendent of
City Schools of Manila
Respondent: Commission on Human Rights, Graciano
Budoy, Julieta Babaran, Elsa Ibabao, Helen Lupo,
Amparo Gonzales, Luz del Castillo, Elsa Reyes, and
Apoinario Esber
Concept: Jurisdiction
Brief facts: Public school teachers engaged in
peaceful ad concerted activities due to the
governments inaction towards their requests. They
were administratively charged for failure to return to
work and were preventively suspended. They also filed
a complaint with the CHR, alleging that their human
rights were violated. SC issued a joint resolution
declaring that Secretary Carinos decision of dismissing
them was valid. CHR interposed that it isnt bound by
SCs resolution and proceeded to declare its intention
to hear the case.
Doctrine: 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 it
cannot try and decide cases as courts of justice, or
even quasi-judicial bodied do. To investigate is not to
adjudicate or adjudge.
FACTS:
1. On September 17, 1990, 800 public school
teachers, among them members of the Manila
Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA) and
Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook
mass concerted actions to highlight their plight
resulting from alleged failure of the public
authorities to act upon grievances that had time
and again been brought to the latter's attention.
Apparently, there was no response from the
Secretary of Education regarding their demands.
2. The mass concerted actions consisted of staying
away from their classes and gathering in peaceful
assemblies.
3. The teachers who participated were served with an
order by the Secretary of Education to return to
work in 24 hours or face dismissal, and a
memorandum directing the DECS officials
concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against
those who did not comply and to hire their
replacements.
4. Despite the directives, the mass actions continued
into the week. Among those who participated were
the 8 private respondents who are teachers at the
Ramon Magsaysay High School.
5. For failure to heed the return-to-work order, private
respondents were administratively charged on the
basis of the principals report and were also
preventively suspended for 90 days pursuant to
Sec 41 of PD 807. They were also temporarily
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |1
replaced.
to hear the charges in accordance with PD 807.
6. In the administrative case, private respondents
filed separate answers, opted for formal
investigation, and also moved for suspension of the
administrative proceedings pending resolution by
the SC of their application for writ of
injunction/TRO.
o When their motion for suspension was
denied, they staged a walkout signifying
their intent to boycott the entire
proceedings.
7. The case eventually resulted in a decision of
Secretary Carino, decreeing dismissal of Apolinario
Esber and the suspension for 9 months of Babaran,
Budoy, and del Castillo.
8. In the meantime, MPSTA filed a petition for
certiorari before the RTC against Carino
(dismissed). Later on, MPSTA went to the SC on
certiorari in an attempt to nullify the dismissal,
grounded on the alleged violation of the striking
teachers right to due process and peaceable
assembly. ACT also filed similar petition.
9. Meanwhile, respondent teachers submitted sworn
statements to the Commission on Human Rights to
complain that while they were participating in the
peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of
their replacements as teachers without notice and
for reasons unknown to them.
o CHR scheduled a dialogue and sent a
subpoena to Secretary Carino, requiring his
attendance.
10. Through the OSG, Sec Carino was granted leave to
file a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds
that the complaint states no cause of action and
the CHR has no jurisdiction over the case.
11. Pending determination by the Commission of the
motion to dismiss, judgments affecting the striking
teachers were promulgated in 2 cases of the SC
ruling that it was lawful for Sec Carino to issue
return-to-work orders, file administrative charges
against them, prevenetively suspend them, and
issue decision on those charges.
12. CHR denied Sec Carinos motion to dismiss. It held
that the teachers were denied due process and
that there had been a violation of their civil and
political rights which it was empowered to
investigate.
13. SOLGEN, in behalf of Sec Carino, commenced
present action for certiorari and prohibition to set
aside the order of the CHR.
14. The CHR argues that is doesnt feel bound by the
SCs joint resolution. It also made plain its intention
to hear and resolve the case on the merits over the
following issues:
1) whether or not the striking teachers were
denied due process, and just cause exists for
the imposition of administrative disciplinary
sanctions on them by their superiors; and
2) whether or not the grievances which were
"the cause of the mass leave of MPSTA
teachers, (and) with which causes they (CHR
complainants) sympathize," justify their mass
action or strike.
15. CHR intends to self-adjudicate the same issues
which have been decided by the Secretary of
Education, subject to appeal to the CSC.
ISSUE: WON the CHR has jurisdiction or adjudicatory
powers, or the power to try and decide, or hear and
determine certain types of cases, like alleged human
rights violations involving civil or political rights (NO)
RATIO:
The Court declares the Commission on Human
Rights to have no such power; and that it 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.
- Under Art, XIII, Sec. 17, the CHRs powers and
functions are the following:
(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;
(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or
detention facilities;
(5) Establish a continuing program of research,
education, and information to enhance respect for
the primacy of human rights;
(6) 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;
(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's
compliance with international treaty obligations on
human rights;
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |2
(8) 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;
(9) Bequest the assistance of any department,
bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its
functions;
(10) Appoint its officers and employees in
accordance with law; and
(11) Perform such other duties and functions as
may be provided by law."
- It is only the first of the enumerated powers that
bears any resemblance to adjudication or
adjudgment.
- The Constitution grants the CHR the power to
investigate all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights.
- 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 to determine the truth.
- It may also request assistance of any department
in the performance of its functions in the conduct
of its investigation.
- But it cannot try and decide cases as courts of
justice, or even quasi-judicial bodied do. To
investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge.
- "Investigate," commonly understood, means to
examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into,
research on, study. The dictionary definition of
"investigate" is "to observe or study closely: inquire
into systematically: to search or inquire into; to
subject to an official probe; to conduct an official
inquiry."
- The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially: to
follow up step by step by patient inquiry or
observation. To trace or track; to search into; to
examine and inquire into with care and accuracy;
to find out by careful inquisition; examination; the
taking of evidence; a legal inquiry; to inquire; to
make an investigation, "investigation" being in turn
described as "an administrative function, the
exercise of which ordinarily does not require a
hearing.
- The purpose of investigation, of course, is to
discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information.
Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of
settling, deciding or resolving a controversy
involved in the facts inquired into by application of
the law to the facts established by the inquiry.
- "Adjudicate," commonly or popularly understood,
means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide,
determine, resolve, rule on, settle. The dictionary
defines the term as "to settle finally (the rights and
duties of the parties to a court case) on the merits
of issues raised: to pass judgment on: settle
judicially: act as judge."
- And "adjudge" means "to decide or rule upon as a
judge or with judicial or quasi-judicial powers: to
award or grant judicially in a case of controversy "
- In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in
the exercise of judicial authority. Implies a judicial
determination of a fact, and the entry of a
judgment."
- Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights,
having merely the power "to investigate," cannot
and should not "try and resolve on the merits"
(adjudicate) the matters involved in Striking
Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775, as it has
announced it means to do; and it cannot do so
even if there be a claim that in the administrative
disciplinary proceedings against the teachers in
question, initiated and conducted by the DECS,
their human rights, or civil or political rights had
been transgressed.
- These are matters within the original jurisdiction of
the Secretary of Education, being within the scope
of disciplinary powers granted to him under the
Civil Service Law, and also within the appellate
jurisdiction of the CSC.
- Whether or not the conclusions reached by the
Secretary in disciplinary cases are correct and
whether or not the proceedings are void or
defective are matters which may be passed upon
and determined through a motion for
reconsideration addressed to the Secretary himself.
In case of an adverse verdict, it may be reviewed
by the CSC and eventually the SC.
- The Commission on Human Rights has no business
intruding into the jurisdiction and functions of the
Education Secretary or the Civil Service
Commission. It has no business going over the
same ground traversed by the latter and making its
own judgment on the questions involved.
- The investigation of the CHR would serve no useful
purpose. If it should result in conclusions contrary
to those reached by the Secretary, it would have
no power to reverse such conclusions anyway.
Reversal thereof can only be done by the CSC and
SC.
- The only thing it can do is to refer the matter to the
appropriate agency.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition granted. Order of CHR is
annulled and set aside.
Paras, Concurring:
I wish to add however that the Commission on Human
Rights should concern itself in this case and in many
other similar cases:
(1) not only with the human rights of striking teachers
but also the human rights of students and their
parents;
(2) not only with the human rights of the accused but
also the human rights of the victims and the latter's
families;
(3) not only with the human rights of those who rise
against the government but also those who defend the
same;
(4) not only the human rights of striking laborers but
also those who as a consequence of strikes may be laid
off because of financial repercussions.
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |3
The defense of human rights is not a monopoly of a
government agency (such as the Commission on
Human Rights) nor the monopoly of a group of lawyers
defending so-called "human rights" but the
responsibility of ALL AGENCIES
(governmental or private) and of ALL LAWYERS,
JUDGES, and JUSTICES. LFinally, the Commission should
realize that while there are "human rights", there are
also corresponding "human obligations."
Padilla, dissenting:
I dissent. I vote to dismiss the petition for the same
reasons stated in my earlier separate opinion filed in
this case.
Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights (1994)
Vitug, J.
Plaintiff: Brigido Simon, Jr., Carlos Quimpo, Carlito
Abelardo, Generoso Ocampo
Respondent: Commission on Human Rights, Roque
Fermo, and others as John Does
Concept: Jurisdiction
Brief Facts: Vendors in North EDSA received a
demolition notice. They filed a complaint with the CHR,
asking the latter to address Mayor Simon to stop the
demolition of their stalls. CHR issued an order,
directing the Mayor to desist from demolishing their
stalls. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, questioning
CHRs jurisdiction.
Doctrine: Court is not prepared to conclude that the
order for the demolition of the stalls can fall within the
compartment of human rights violations involving civil
and political rights intended by the Constitution.
CHRs power to cite for 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.
FACTS:
1. Carlos Quimpo, in his capacity as an Executive
Officer of the QC Integrated Hawkers Management
Council under the Office of the City Mayor, signed a
Demolition Notice which was received by private
respondents who are members of the North EDSA
Vendors Association, Inc.
2. In the said notice, respondents were given a grace
period of 3 days to vacate the premises of North
EDSA. Prior to the receipt of the demolition notice,
private respondents were informed that their stall
should be removed to give way to the Peoples
Park.
3. On July 12, 1990, the group led by their President
Roque Fermo, filed a letter-complaint with the CHR
against the petitioners, asking the CHR for a letter
to be addressed to Mayor Brigido Simon Jr to stop
the demolition of their stalls, sari-sari stores, and
carinderia along North Edsa.
4. 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 the petitioners to
appear before the CHR.
5. On the basis of respondents sworn statements and
CHRs own ocular inspection, the CHR was
convinced that petitioners carried out the
demolition. The CHR ordered the disbursement of
financial assistance of not more than P200k in
favor of respondents to purchase light housing
materials and food and directed petitioners to
desist from further demolition, with a warning that
violation of said order would lead to a citation for
contempt and arrest.
6. A motion to dismiss questioned CHRs jurisdiction.
o 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;
o a perusal of the said Agreement revealed
that the moratorium referred to therein
refers to moratorium in the demolition of
the structures of poor dwellers;
o that the complainants in this case were not
poor dwellers but independent business
entrepreneurs;
o that the complainants were occupying
government land, particularly the sidewalk
of EDSA corner North Avenue, Quezon City;
o 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.
7. A supplemental motion to dismiss was filed by
petitioners, stating that the CHRs authority should
be understood as being confined only to
investigation of violation of civil and political rights,
and that the rights allegedly violated in this case
were not civil or political, but their privilege to
engage in business.
8. The motion to dismiss and the contempt charge
were heard and submitted for resolution. The CHR
cited petitioners in contempt for carrying out the
demolition, and imposed a P500 fine on each of
them. The CHR denied the motion to dismiss and
the supplemental motion to dismiss for lack of
merit.
o CHR opined that it wasnt the intention of
the Constitutional Commission to create
only a paper tiger limited to investigating
civil and political rights, but is should be
considered a quasi-judicial body with the
power to provide appropriate legal
measures for the protection of human
rights.
9. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied,
hence this petition.
ISSUES:
1. WON the CHR has jurisdiction to investigate the
alleged violations of the "business rights" of the private
respondents whose stalls were demolished by the
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |4
petitioners at the instance and authority given by the
Mayor of Quezon City (NO)
2. WON the CHR has jurisdiction to disburse the
amount of P200,000.00 as financial aid to the vendors
affected by the demolition (not the proper forum to
raise this issue: petitioner doesnt have locus standi to
question the disbursements; must be resolved by the
proper agency)
RATIO:
1. The CHRs jurisdiction is limited to the
investigation of violations of civil and political
rights.
- Cited the earlier case of Carino v CHR: 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.
- It can hardly be disputed that the phrase "human
rights" is so generic a term that any attempt to
define it, albeit not a few have tried, could be at
best be described as inconclusive.
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well
as, more specifically, the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
suggests that the scope of human rights can be
understood to include those that relate to an
individual's social, economic, cultural, political and
civil relations. It thus seems to closely identify the
term to the universally accepted traits and
attributes of an individual, along with what is
generally considered to be his inherent and
inalienable rights, encompassing almost all aspects
of life.
- Are these broad concepts contemplated by the
framers of the Constitutional Commission in
adopting the provisions on human rights? Court
looked at experience of Martial Law and the
records of the Constitutional Commission.
o Only limited to civil and political rights.
o Civil Rights- those rights that belong to
every citizen of the state or country, or, in
wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are
not connected with the organization or
administration of government. They include
the rights of property, marriage, equal
protection of the laws, freedom of contract,
etc. Or, as otherwise defined civil rights are
rights appertaining to a person by virtue of
his citizenship in a state or community.
Such term may also refer, in its general
sense, to rights capable of being enforced
or redressed in a civil action
o Political Rights- refer to the right to
participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or administration of
government, the right of suffrage, the right
to hold public office, the right of petition
 and, in general, the rights appurtenant to
citizenship vis-a-vis the management of
government
o The delegates envisioned a Commission on
Human Rights that would focus its
attention to the more severe cases of
human rights violations. Delegate Garcia,
for instance, mentioned such areas as the
"(1) protection of rights of political
detainees, (2) treatment of prisoners and
the prevention of tortures, (3) fair and
public trials, (4) cases of disappearances,
(5) salvagings and hamletting, and (6)
other crimes committed against the
religious
- Court is not prepared to conclude that the order for
the demolition of the stalls can fall within the
compartment of human rights violations involving
civil and political rights intended by the
Constitution.
- CHRs power to cite for 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 in the instance before the
court is not investigatorial in character but
prescinds from an adjudicative power that it
doesnt possess.
- Export Processing Zone Authority vs CHR: 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 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,
TIMELESS REVIEWERS B2017 | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA |5
or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the
Supreme Court.
- The CHR has legal standing to indorse, for
appropriate action, its findings and
recommendations to any appropriate government
agency.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition GRANTED.
Dissenting Opinion, Padilla, J.
- I am of the most considered view that the CHR can
issue a cease and desist order to maintain a status
quo pending its investigation of a case involving an
alleged human rights violation; that such cease
and desist order may be necessary in situations
involving a threatened violation of human rights,
which the CHR intents to investigate.
- In the case at bench, I would consider the
threatened demolition of the stalls, sarisari stores
and carinderias as well as the temporary shanties
owned by the private respondents as posing prima
facie a case of human rights violation because it
involves an impairment of the civil rights of said
private respondents, under the definition of civil
rights cited by the majority opinion and which the
CHR has unquestioned authority to investigate.
- Human rights demand more than lip service and
extend beyond impressive displays of placards at
street corners. Positive action and results are what
count. Certainly, the cause of human rights is not
enhanced when the very constitutional agency
tasked to protect and vindicate human rights is
transformed by us, from the start, into a tiger
without dentures but with maimed legs to boot. I
submit the CHR should be given a wide latitude to
look into and investigate situations which may or
may not ultimately) involve human rights
violations.