67. EPZA V. CHR, et. al.

– 208 SCRA 125 (no injunctive power)

FACTS: EPZA purchase a parcel of land and before it could take possession, individuals had
entered and planted agricultural products without permission. EPZA paid a P10,000-financial-
assistance. Ten years later, respondent, filed in the CHR a joint complaint when EPZA bulldozed
the area with acts in violation of their human rights. CHR issued an Order of injunction
commanding EPZA to desist from committing such acts. EZPA filed motion to lift the Order of
Injunction for lack of authority to issue injunctive writs and temporary restraining orders

RULING: The constitutional directing the CHR to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid
services…" may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining
order or writ of injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly
said so.

68. Simon v. CHR – 229 SCRA 117 (no injunctive power)

FACTS: CHR issued order to desist from demolishing the stalls pending resolution of the
vendors/squatters’ complaint and ordering said vendors/squatters to appear before the CHR.
Petitioner filed MD questioning its jurisdiction and its authority should be confined only to the
investigation of violations of civil and political rights, and not to privilege to engage in business.
RULING: Yes. To issue "order to desist" is not within the power of CHR. Article XIII, Section
18(1), provides the power and functions to "investigate… The order to desist is not investigatory
in character but an adjudicative power that it does not possess. Neither its power to provide
preventive measures does it include the power to issue restraining order or injunction it being not
a court of justice.

Natural and Primary Right of Parents

69. Meyer v. Nebraska - 262 US 390
FACTS: Nebraska passed a law prohibiting teaching grade school children any language other
than English. Meyer, a German teacher, was convicted under this law.
RULING: Liberty protected by Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means more
than freedom from bodily restraint. It includes the right of a teacher to teach German to a student,
and the right of parents to control the upbringing of their child as they see fit. While the state has
a legitimate interest, the means it chose to pursue this objective was excessive.

70. Pierce v. Society of Sisters - 262 US 510

FACTS: Appelees, 2 non-public schools, were protected by a restraining order prohibiting
appellants from enforcing an Oregon Act that required parents and guardians to send their children
to public school. How true?
RULING: The 14th Amendment provides a liberty interest in a parent’s or guardian’s right to
decide the mode in which their children are educated. State’s may not usurp this right when the
questioned legislation does not reasonably relate to a viable state interest.

71. Wisconsin v. Yoder - 406 US 205

FACTS: Did Wisconsin law that require all parents to send their children to school at least until
age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send
their children to school for religious reasons?
RULING: Free exercise of religion outweighed the State's interests in compelling school
attendance beyond the eighth grade. The values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp
conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional
one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by
Wisconsin to justify the law.

72. Ginsberg v. New York - 390 US 629

FACTS: Sam's Stationery and Luncheonette sold sandwiches and porn. Undercover informants
posing as minors bought pornographic materials from the shop in violation of a New York law
which made it illegal to knowingly sell any pictures of nudity to a minor under 17. Spouses were
charged under the law and convicted.
RULING: It was well within the state’s power to protect minors and that just because the material
is not classified as obscene to adults, it may still be regulated with minors. While the First
Amendment protected men’s freedom to decide what they will read and listen to, government
regulation could extend to settings where a person lacked the capacity to make a choice. New York
was free to determine that children were not possessed of a full capacity for individual choice.

Academic freedom of “institutions of higher learning".

80. University of San Carlos v. CA - 166 SCRA 570
FACTS: 3rd year Nursing students failed to meet the retention policy of the school the minimum
grade of 80% in any major subject and in two minor subjects. The school refused to re-admit them.
Some of the units she had completed when she was still an architecture student was credited in her
Nursing course. However, she was aware of her earlier failing grades in Architecture and that the
same would be taken into consideration in the evaluation of her overall academic performance to
determine if she could graduate with honors.
RULING: Schools of learning are given ample discretion to formulate rules and guidelines in the
granting of honors as part of academic freedom. It is within the competence of universities and
colleges to determine who are entitled to honors among the students. Its discretion on this academic
matter may not be disturbed much less controlled by the courts unless there is grave abuse of
discretion in its exercise.