We are now on the checks on Administrative Agencies right? What did we say?

Earlier on we said
as a matter of fact in election law, we knew that for as long as the decision of the administrative
agency is supported by substantial evidence, normally, the court does not disturb that because
the reason is it is the administrative agency that knows better. Except where there is grave abuse
of discretion - that is the other reason why the court might inquire into the administrative aspect
or the administrative findings of facts of the administrative agency.

So kni, checks on administrative agencies... the president can actually check... congress can
through confirmation of appointments , creation and abolition, appropriation. I think we already
discussed about confirmation of appointments correct? And we also discussed about
appropriation, the power of the purse, remember that? The power of the purse where we "concur"
with congress and ask for budget... but the congress may say OK, this is the opportunity for us to
express our disgust over the people in that administrative agency, so that way they can actually
check the performance of the duties of the administrative agencies.... so ato nang i-skip o... maybe
we can talk about creation and abolition... legislative investigation we are done with that correct?

then the ombudsman, can the ombudsman check on administrative agencies? how about the
courts? can they? of course they can.

Check by the president on administrative agencies. This time the president deactivated a particular
government agency.... kanang gitawag nga economic intelligence and investigative department
(EIAD)... and out of the deactivation, the president transferred its functions to the board of the
bureau of customs and the NBI. okay? Now take note that this particular agency is under the office
of the president or the executive department. dba? what did we establish earlier on? The president
has the continuing authority to reorganize the offices of the president but when the president
reorganizes his office, it does not include the power to create an office. Remember? Hiralgo vs
truth commission.

But if it were the executive department not necessarily the office of the president, then the
president can actually create an office under the executive department as part and parcel of his
power to reorganize. Please take note of the distinction. Now here, in this case, the president
deactivated the EIAD and transfer its functions to the BOC and the NBI... so nerklamo ang mga
personnel sa EIAD... what about our security of tenure... ok... mao na ilang problema. It violates
the security of tenure, it is in bad faith because it is intended to give way to make a task force
performing essentially identical functions... what did we say? the abolition of public office could
be tainted with bad faith if after the abolition, there is another government agency that comes
along performing the same functions. It usurps the power of Congress to abolish government
agencies. Mao ni gi-ingon sa sol gen. Ingon sa sol gen, it is not abolished, it is merely deactivated.
so who did the SC rule?

The SC said that deactivation and abolishment are both measures of reorganization. To abolish
means to liquidate, annul, aggregate or destroy completely. To deactivate means to render
inactive or ineffective or to break up by discharging or reasigning personnel. But if you think about
it, it is just a matter of nomecleture correct? The effect is the same. You abolish or you deactivate,
the effect is the same. In this case, the SC said it's different. That's not abolition... that's
deactivation.

Ang purpose daw sa deactivation is to maximize the use of personnel, facilities and resources of
existing agencies. So here, the SC said that deactivation is a valid measure of reorganization as
part of the executive check on the economy and efficiency of administrative agencies... dba? what
did we establish? The reason why there is reorganization is for simplicity, economy and
efficiency.So kani, ingon ang SC, deactivation might look like abolition but these are two different
measures but the effect is the same actually if you think about it... nawala gihapon sila. But here
in this case, it establishes the power of the president to check on administrative agencies... do you
follow?

What about Congress?

Confirmation of appointments. Mao ni basis. I think we talked about this already. The president
shall nominate and with the consent of the commission on appointments, appoint the heads...
blah blah blah. In that first sentence, it enumerates the process of those who undergo the process
of commission on appointments.. pag 2nd sentence, it mentions the option to appoint... meaning
no need for consent... you just have to appointed and accept the designation... and the
appointment is already complete. do you follow?

Kni, I think we talked about this na... so we skip this na.

So kni... mao ni sila dapat mo undergo sa commission on appointments.. ambassadors, other
public ministers... take note here that when we talk about the chief of police, it does not need the
confirmation or action of the commission on appointments... even if somehow it appears that they
belong to this category, they don't belong because? what's the reason? Because the police is the
civilian officer of the government.

And other officers who appointment are vested into... by this constitution. So we established the
CSC commissioners, the comelec, COA and JBC and the sectoral rep. in the transitory provisions
of the constitution.

Is this list exclusive? Yes. it is exclusive. In other words, if you are the NLRC chair, your appointment
does not require the confirmation of the commission on appointments, we already discussed the
case about that... what about this one? Central bank governor... that's tarosa vs signson. The SC
said "no", because it does not fall part of the enumeration. Exclusive ni cya.

Take note ha. There are appointments that says that they need to undergo the process of the
commission on appointments as provided by law. So niingon sila... naa may balaod niingon.
however, it is inconsistent with the constitution. Exactly why, in the main case here, the Sc said, we
need to nullify the law for having offended the constitution... in which case, kni sila NLRC chair,
central bank governor...they don't need to go through the process of the commission on
appointments.

Even if voluntarily go to congress and they will go there and say "confirm us". the SC says "still
you can't do that" because we cannot move constitutional boudnaries from time to time. The
constitution says "no need for confirmation", you cannot voluntarily submit.

In other words estoppel does not apply here. you cannot invoke estoppel against the constitution.

Who are the other officers, kning mga chairs on commissions... I think I just said this.

What about judges, justices, ombudsman and deputies. Unsay maka-check nila? It's the JBC... pero
ang check is prior but not after.
It's prior and recommendatory. They are going to send the president a shortlist of nominees.

Who are the officers of the government whose appointment are not otherwise provided by law?
What did we say? pagsilent ang consti... ug silent ang balaod, kinsay mo-appoint? It's the default
appointing authority which is the president. Kni, chair of hte CHR? the president appoints them...
the significance is that no need to undergo the commission on appointments. Even if in one case...
they voluntarily submitted themselves.

What does the phrase "in the president alone" means? It means to the exclusion of the courts,
heads of departments, commisions or boards. But congress has the authority to decide whether
the appointment should be reserved to the president alone or should be shared with dept. heads,
agencies, commissions or boards.

Take note, what did we establish here? In the president alone means exclusion to the courts. but
take note, congress can actually say it is not necessarily the president is the appionting authority.
It could be shared or delegated to courts, dept. heads, agencies, commission or boards... even if
the consti says "in the president alone". It only means discretionary on the part of congress to say
that the authority here is the president alone but the congress can also say it's the agency head,
etc.

Ad interim appointments. Basis is... the president can make appointments during the recess of
congress whether the appointment is voluntary or compulsory but such appointments shall be
effective only until the disapproval of the commission on appointments or until the adjournment
of the next session of congress. Dba? Ad interim, during recess of congress, it does impair the
power of the president to appoint... that is continuing correct?... otherwise,congress can say OK,
magrecess mi ug dugay. Dugayon namo para dili ka ka-appoint... it will cripple the executive...
exactly... that is why the consti says if that happens, it does not interrupt the power of the president
to appoint... but we do not call that regular appointment... that is ad interim appointment... and
ad interim means in the meantime or temporary. However, do not be misled because you learned
in your stat con that ad interim standing alone insofar as the president is concerned is not really
temporary. That is permanent.

In other words, standing alone, ad interim means for the moment... in the meantime... temporary.
But if you contextualize that with the intent of the consti, it means that is permanent in character.
Take note ha... ad interim appointment is not temporary... that is permanent in character. However,
it could be terminated, it could be ended subject to the disapproval of the commission on
appointments... but the nature of appointment is not temporary, it is permanent even if it is called
ad interim.

My students in stat con know this... I assigned the case before where the SC said yes... standing
alone, ad interim means temporary but if you contextualize it with the consti and the law, it means
it is permanent in character.

Recess, voluntary recess... nevermind this.

When does ad interim appointment begin? if it does not require consent... when it is accepted by
the appointee. If it requires consent, only until the disapproval or adjournment prior to action of
the commission on appointments. This might be misleading because kning ad interim
appointments applies only to those whose appointments must undergo action of the commission
on appointments.

what about those appointees whose appointment does not need the commission on
appointments? can the president extend that kind of ad interim appointments? the answer is no.
what does the president extend then? temporary appointment.

Klaro ha? Ang ad interim only applies to those whose appointments need the confirmation of the
commission on appointments, otherwise, it is temporary appointments. OK, so do not be misled
here.

Kni ha... ad interim appointmdent is extended only to those that need confirmation... but acting
appointment can be extended at any time whenever there is a vacancy. Ad interim is subject to
action of the commission... while acting is not.

What about the ombudsman, I think we talked about this in the law of public officers.
The (lower) court ruled that the prosecutory powers of the ombudsman is limited to cases that is
within the sandiganbayan to the exclusion of cases under the regular courts... DBA? duna SB, unsay
jurisdiction? katong salary grade 27. So, they said that the ombudsman, ang ma-investigate ra
niya katong kaso that will go to the SB.

However, you know this already... the grant of primary jurisdiction merely grants the ombudsman
to take over at any stage from any investigatory agency of the government. What did we say? pag
if it pertains to public officers, primary jurisdiction is the ombudsman. But it is not exclusive, it can
be shared with other investigative bodies. What it means by primary jurisdiction is that the
ombudsman can take over at any stage.

The list of cases cognizable of by the SB is not incompatible with the power of the ombudsman
to investigate cases within the regular courts. so ombudsman... maski asa ni cya.

the power of the ombudsman to check on admin agencies through the investigation of illegal,
unjust, improper and inefficient acts is broad and encompasses all kinds of nonfeasance,
misfeasance and malfeasance.

Do you follow? anything that appears unjust, illegal, improper, inefficient, ombudsman can always
acquire jurisdiction unless there is a law that specifically specifies otherwise. And such power is
not only recommandatory but mandatory.

Kni o... mao ni maglibog sila... it says "recommend... etc." but then "ensure compliance therewith".
In stat con,balik ta... ingon ang SC, always contextualize. never ever take a word in isolation from
the rest of the law... because you will be lost.

so we are done with checks with administrative agencies.

Next is judicial review.

Kni nga kaso... duha ka entities. Nagsabot sila to go to arbitration. Niiongon sila... whatever is the
decision of the arbitrator is final and unappealable. klaro ilang sabot. So, there is no other option
of any party after the award except to enforce it... dba? wala na?... So the arbitrator said this is my
decision and you agreed that it is final and unappealable.

However, naay grave error on the arbitrator when it departed from the terms of the contract and
misapplied the law in excess of the power of the delegated authority.

so, nilapas cya... there is grave abuse of discretion. Pero ang sabot is final and appealable...
nganong karon mobalitok naman sad ka? Can that be allowed? Can the courts be stopped from
inquiring into the agreement that was final and unappealable?

Under Art... of the civil code, the finality of the arbitration award is not absolute and the parties
cannot ammend that law and say it is going to be absolute. In the instance where it is shown that
the arbitrator... naana pud ni... gravely abused its discretion acted without or excess of
jurisdiction... then the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the court, as a
special civil action, the court may either "list the facts"(sic) or interpretation of law.

So, kni mga administrative agencies, they can always be superseded by the courts. Kning mga
courts, naa jud ni cya. if there is grave abuse of discretion, exactly... why... there is grave abuse of
discretion, there has got to be a remedy against that abuse.

but unless the errors of fact or law are so patent amounting to grave abuse of discretion... the
decisions of the admin agencies are not exempt from judicial review if so warranted. Even if the
law says or the parties agree nga final na cya... if there is grave abuse of discretion... pwede ma
review sa court... do you follow?

Administrative agency decisions may be reviewed when there is grave abuse of discretion, lack or
in excess of jurisdiction, violation of due process or denial of substantial justice. Take note of the
qualifies. Abuse of discretion must be grave. Denial of justice must be substantial. So it's not mere
inconvenience but substantive right na violate... and erroneous interpretation of law.

Unsay sayop sa arbitrator? He went beyond his jurisdiction when he failed to apply the terms and
conditions of the construction agreement... So niingon sila... arbitrator.. mao ni among contrata...
and then... you decide. What the arbitrator did was depart from the terms and conditions of the
contract. Lahi iyang basis, nagbuhat cya ug iya2x ra. He exceeded his power when he awarded
extra compensation. Nasayop sad ang CA ug RTC ani... because gasalig sila sa ilang kasabotan
nga whatever the arbitrator says, we are going to accept that. But the SC said not necessarily...
when there is grave abuse of discretion... we can intervene... because what did we establish... we
cannot disturb the factual findings of admin agencies if it is supported by substantial evidence.
So, kni silang tanan... it does not divest the power of the SC to judicial review. Mosango jud ta
tanan sa SC.

Kni pud... mining claims overlapped... so it was awarded to the entity who claimed it first. The SC
said that findings of fact should be supported by substantial evidence which is defined as that
evidence in which the reasonable mind may accept to support a conclusion. It should not be
disturbed even if the evidence is not overwhelming or preponderant.

What do we require (for judicial review)? Grave abuse of discretion.There might be some errors
but if it doesn't cross the line.. it could be acceptable because no.1, we need to unclog the court
dockets and no. 2... admin agencies know better than the SC insofar as actual findings of fact are
concerned.

EXCEPT... naana pud... mistake, fraud, collussion or arbitrary action on the part of admin agency,
proceedings leading to the findings are irregular, palpable errors are committed and grave abuse
of discretion... manifest arbitrariness or capriciousness. Kni jud. Anything that is excessive, the SC
is there to correct that. Angay ninyo timan-an... there is certiorari because of grave abuse of
discretion and the law and the courts says kung ingon ana gani... we have to afford opportunity
to rectify that. There must be a remedy. Thus, the birth of certiorari.

Kni sad (another case)... there is a foreign corporation that sells under the brand "gold toe". Since,
creative ang pinoy... gahimo ug corporation with the brand "gold top". After considering the
similarities of the two, the bureau of patents found that...the two... are made deceptively the
same... very common.

Ka familiar no aning gold top? You watch volleyball? they are the sponsors of UEAP. it's ateneo vs
UST. UST broke my heart, I'm la salle. So ang argument sa gold top is "the foreign corporation
only used the brand in 1966 while the filipino corp. used the brand in 1962". However, it turned
out... ni-una ug rehistro ang foreign corporation... 1954 pa ilang gi-rehistro. Gikawat sa Filipino
pero naay variation... (the SC said)... the findings of fact of admin agencies are generally accorded
great respect if not finality by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of the admin
agencies... the court cannot again weight evidence and change such judgment

What are we saying here? the court cannot replace the judgment of admin agencies... that is the
general rule... the exception is when there is grave abuse of discretion.

Now we go to our national commissions... it's just 14 slides and your admin law is done.

Let's talk about the CHR (commmission on human rights). Qualifications, mao ni ang chair... ug
members of the board. Other disabilities and disqualifications... must be proven by law. The term
is 7 years without re-appointment... murag iyang gisundog ang sa constitutional commissions.
Take note ha. the CHR and NAPOLCOM... they are not constitutional commissions, they are
national commissions. They have fiscal autonomy.

In 1988, the president designated Bautista as acting chair of the CHR. In 1989, the president
extended the appointment. The commission on appointments required her to submit documents
in support of her appointment. But she refused on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.Can the
president issue another appointment... this time in a permanent capacity? the answer is no. The
first appointment is a completed act by the president. Ngano man? Because the first appointment,
nasayop sila. Nasayop sila into thinking that it needs the action or consent of the commission on
appointments. Now, ingon ang SC... wala na... no need. You don't even need to issue another
appointment and say this time it's permanent.

In other words, president aquino made a mistake. She said I'm going to issue an temporary
appointment subject to the confirmation of the commission on appointments. Niingon ang
commission on appointments, cge, pa-submita... ni balibad man si Bautista. So, niingon si aquino...
OK, I'm going to give her a permanent appointment. The SC said "no need" because the first
appointment was already a permanent appointment.
Puros sila nasayop. Can the commission on appointments review the appointment if the president
voluntarily submits? No... because the SC cannot from time to time move constitutional
boundaries. Nindot kaayo pagkahimo sa SC. If the consti says kni pwede sa commission on
appointments, kni dili... you cannot change that by voluntary submission.

Kni... another case... public school teachers left their classes to dramatize their plight... You know
there was movie before... called Mila starring maricel soriano. Kni cya... public school teachers ga-
strike sila... to air their grievances. They were underpaid and overworked. Mao reklamo sa mga
mai-stra... and that is a very very legitimate issue. Ako, I really support the public school teachers.
Provided ni ingon si du30 nga they are going to receive 40k salary.. para nako that is not even
enough. Public school teachers, even private school teachers, including professors of law are
underpaid.. You know why? because the work of the teacher is not limited to the four walls of the
classroom. Prior, we prepare... especially in the college of law... we prepare... because the students
are so intelligent. Kidding aside, kining mga public school teachers, mag-andam... naay lesson
plan, after class mag-check nasad papel. So, if you become a teacher, it must be a vocation. It's
not a profession. It's a vocation, a committment and a passion. Because underpaid man jud ka...
and duna pa mga estudyante that will stress you out. So, they strike. When gi-biyaan nila ilang
class, the education secretary ordered them to return to work within 24 hours or face dismissal.
Secretary at this time was Carino. They defied the order... instead more teachers joined the mass
action. The secretary said that although you have legitimate grievances but that is not enough
reason to abandon your classes. What about the students, what about their learning?

Now, some of them were dismissed or suspended or replaced. They filed a case with the CHR
which enjoined the Secretary to bring the necessary documents. So dagan sila sa CHR. Gi-filan
nila ug kaso ang Dep Ed. Si Carino ang Secretary. Carino was defiant... he moved to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. But the CHR denied and instead ordered the secretary to Answer the charges.
The SC said... this is adjudicatory... a power not granted to the CHR... unfortunately.

In other words, klaro ha, fact-finding ra ang jurisdiction sa CHR. It has not adjudicatory powers. If
you have no adjudicatory powers, then, it follows that you don't have the the powers of
contumacy. You cannot cite a person in contempt and you cannot grant the ancillary remedy of a
temporary restraining order (TRO) or a cease and desist order.

the power to investigate is limited to... receive and find facts. Fact finding is not adjudication. It
must be to the end that it will be decided somewhere else. Nakalusot si Carino. As a matter of
fact, katong movie nga Mila, she was one of those who were dismissed. so, na dismiss man...
naglaroy2x nalang sa kadalanan sa metro manila... hantod namatay cya. Wala nay income... wala
na tanan.

Investigate commonly means examine, delve or probe, research on or study. Adjudicate

commonly means to judge, arbitrate, resolve, rule or settle. the jurisdiction of the CHR is limited
to investigation of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.

So ang CHR cannot have the ancillary remedies of Cease and Desist or TRO. So CHR cannot say
ok... cease and desist from demolition the stalls... cease and desist from destroying the shanties
of the informal settlers. The CHR cannot issue because number 1, it has no adjudicatory power...
if it has no adjudicatory power, it cannot have the power to issue ancillary remedies of TRO... and
pagka admin agencies... you call that cease and desist order.

Kni o (another case)... farmers occupied a parcel of land.. which was owned by the Export
Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). The Authority and the companies there wanted to bulldoze the
area. There was a letter from the president telling the authority to postpone the demolishing. But
they demolished anyway. Farmers were beaten up and their cameras were snatched by the police.
Hence, the case for human rights violations. The CHR issued an injunction against he EPZA to
desist from demolition and other acts of harassment. the CHR argued that its power is not limited
to investigation.

Dinhi nalipat ang CHR... because the consti says the CHR can provide preventive measures and
services to the underprivileged. So imong tan-awon... it says preventive measures... so we take it
to mean that we can issue a restraining order... preventive eh... preventive measure. The SC said
not necessarily. Again, kung wala kay adjudicatory power, then wala kay ancillary remedy of TRO.
So unsa man diay boot pasabot ana? the SC said preventive measures means that the CHR can
go to the courts and file the TRO on behalf of the human rights victims but not coming from the
CHR itself. It cannot mean to confer the CHR with the power of restraining order and injunction.
If it were the intention (of the consti framers), then the consti would have said so. Because
jurisdiction is conferred by law, it is never derived by implication.

so kato diay nga preventive measures, dili diay to grant on the CHR of the authority for injunction
or TRO. In fact, it's only an authority to secure an injunction from the courts on behalf of the
human rights victims.
It also follows that the CHR has no contumacy powers. A TRO that is invalid to begin with... can
be violated.

But, there is a grant of power on the CHR to make operational guidelines and rules of procedure
and cite in contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court. Unsa naman sad
ni?

Nganon niingon na pud that we can cite in contempt and then walay contumacy powers? It only
means that the CHR can cite for contempt if you do not cooperate with its operational guidelines
and rules of procedure for its fact-finding investigation.

So for example, let's say the CHR says OK, naay Extrajudicial killing dra... mao ni mga police
involved. We want to call on the police to shed light on the matter. Can the police refuse? they
can but they can be cited in contempt because investigative powers sa CHR... kung dili ka mo-
cooperate... that is contumacious. But not where your defiance is based on a TRO that is not valid
to begin with.

Again ha, if it were a TRO, then you cannot be held in contempt because that is not valid to begin
with... but if it were a subpoena to shed light on issue of human rights violations and you defy
that... you did not go there... that is a ground for contumacy.

the power to hold someone in contempt by the CHR is applicable only to: refuse to cooperate
with it, unduly remove relevant information, refusal to obey summons and the like... the
constitution envisions the CHR to focus on issues such as...

OK... take note... "focus on more severe cases"... it does not necessarily follow that they don't have
the power to investigate minor human rights violations. Focus lang sa cases such as... protection
of rights of political detainees, treatment of prisoners, prevention of tortures, fair and public trials,
case of disappearances. Kanang makadungog mo ana desa paresidos... involuntary
disappearances... the case in point here especially in cebu is what happened to father Romano.
He was an activist priest against the marcos dictatorship. Suddenly nawala until now... wala nakita...
no trace... no hint.
Then, salvaging and hamletting. Hamletting means let's say u r in a community... kining mga naa
sa bukid nga barangay. You are suspected of being supportive of the NPAs. So mo-ingon ang
militar... kamong tanan.. balhin mo... kung magpabilin gani mo... ma-supporta ramo sa NPA. So,
involuntarily, you will be forced to transfer residence... that is hamletting... that is human rights
violation.

... and other crimes committed against the religious.

so, ingon sa SC, mao ni dapat focus sa CHR. in other words, these violations of human rights... are
committed by agents of the state, the police and the military. In other words, I think in one of the
classes, ako tamong gi-ingnan nga NPAs, private persons, they do not commit human rights
violations because kung imong tan-awon nga kaso... human rights violations are strictly
committed only by agents of the state. However, that is only for purpose for the CHR acquiring
jurisdiction. In other words, kanang mangawas nga istorya nga... oh... naay dalaga gipatay sa mga
adik, why is the CHR so silent? The answer is simple. The CHR has no jurisdiction. but if it were the
police that did that... the CHR is going to be very very loud because that is his jurisdiction. Agents
of the state, the police and the military... they are supposed to protect us. If the protector becomes
the predator, then that is a big issue. Kamong tanan... at any point in your life... have you been
betrayed by someone you trust? You did right? How did it feel when u were betrayed by a mere
acquiantance? the difference is big right? If your partner or your best friend betrays you... it cuts
deep. But if it were an acquiantance, it doesn't even hurt because acquiantance raman... I don't
expect his loyalty. Exactly why, if it were the police and the military that attacks us, that assualts
us... it is more revolting to the conscience... because they are supposed to be there to protect us.
That explains why your CHR is silent if there is an attack against innocent by individuals by the
NPAs. Besides, NPAs do not commit human rights violations because they are already lawless
entities of the society. They are already outlawed. We don't expect them to protect human rights.
But if it were the police... and if they betray us, that is the time when the CHR says that is our
jurisdiction, we are going to be loud, we are going to be vocal. so, those that come out in FB and
social media... those are misplaced arguments.

but can we say "human rights man... everybody must respect human rights". Yes, but insofar is
jurisdiction is concerned... CHR ngadto lang sa agents of the state that commit human rights
violations.

Civil rights belong to every person... equal protection of the laws, freedom to contract... etc. It
means rights that are able to be redressed or enforced in a civil action.
Political rights on the other hand, refers to the right to participate directly or indirectly in the
government... suffrage, the right to hold public office... in general the rights of citizenship viz a viz
management of government...

Now kung imong tan-awon ang definition sa civil rights, di man kaayo siya serious. We do not say
that the CHR should disregard them... we are only saying that the CHR should focus on more
serious cases.

Remeber that the CHR was created because of the abuses of the Marcos regime. unsa man ilang
katoyoon... kalit lang mangawala... kalit lang ma-salvage. In fact, one of the children of Marcos
iyang gi-ask something sa klase. Then, kalit nawala ang tawo. Then, it was found dead. Who is the
child of marcos? I will not say the name. She is a candidate.

Kning mga demolition of stalls of informal settlers, ingon SC nga dili na cya violation of civil and
political rights because the intention was for their own safety. Nganon man? Because kning
Carenderia naa sa kilid sa highway. Gi-demolish para sa ilang safety... mao gi-ingon sa SC.

What if mo-commit ug violation ang military ug police and it's not a human rights violation? You
go to the regular courts. What about if it were the NPA? You don't go to the CHR. But are they
still liable? Yes, it could be part of rebellion or common crime. Please don't get me wrong. what
we are talking about here is it is a matter of jurisdiction. Exactly, please do not blame the CHR on
its defeaning silence on the violations of committed by drug addicts or NPAs because it has no
jurisdiction.

Before there was a move on the part of congress to abolish the CHR. Ingon sila.. CHR... tungod
cge man mo ug panaway sa presidente... we are going to cut your budget to 1k PHP... There was
public backlash, so ilang gibalik. These are the insults we deserve. Sa FB, unsay gibuhat sa mga
Chinese? They cut the line. Then, who gave them the confidence to do that. Insults we deserve
everyday. Think about it. That ends our admin law.