Political Law Appointments CHR

On 27 Aug 1987, Cory designated Bautista as the Acting Chairwoman of CHR. n !ecem"er of
the same year, Cory made the designation of Bautista #ermanent. $he CoA, ignoring the
decision in the %ison case, a&erred that Bautista cannot ta'e her seat w(o their confirmation.
Cory, through the )*ec +ec, fi,ed with the CoA communications a"out Bautista-s a##ointment
on 1. /an 1989. Bautista refused to "e #,aced under the CoA-s re&iew hence she fi,ed a #etition
"efore the +C. On the other hand, %a,,i,,in in&o'ed )O 1012A stating that since CoA refused
Bautista-s a##ointment, Bautista shou,d "e remo&ed. )O 1012A #ro&ides that the tenure of the
Chairman and the Commissioners of the CHR shou,d "e at the #,easure of the 3resident.
ISSUE: 4hether or not Bautista-s a##ointment is su"5ect to CoA-s confirmation.
HELD: +ince the #osition of Chairman of the CHR is not among the #ositions mentioned in the
first sentence of +ec. 10, Art. 7 of the 1987 Constitution, a##ointments to which are to "e made
with the confirmation of the CoA it fo,,ows that the a##ointment "y the 3resident of the
Chairman of the CHR is to "e made without the re&iew or #artici#ation of the CoA. $o "e more
#recise, the a##ointment of the Chairman and %em"ers of the CHR is not s#ecifica,,y #ro&ided
for in the Constitution itse,f, un,i'e the Chairmen and %em"ers of the C+C, the Co) and the
COA, whose a##ointments are e*#ress,y &ested "y the Constitution in the 3resident with the
consent of the CoA. $he 3resident a##oints the Chairman and %em"ers of the CHR #ursuant to
the second sentence in +ec 10, Art. 7, that is, without the confirmation of the CoA "ecause they
are among the officers of go&ernment 6whom he 7the 3resident8 may "e authori9ed "y ,aw to
a##oint.: And +ec 27c8, )O 101 authori9es the 3resident to a##oint the Chairman and %em"ers
of the CHR.
Because of the fact that the #resident su"mitted to the CoA on 1. /an 1989 the a##ointment of
Bautista, the CoA argued that the #resident though she has the so,e #rerogati&e to ma'e CHR
a##ointments may from time to time as' confirmation with the CoA. $his is untena",e
according to the +C. $he Constitution has ",oc'ed off certain a##ointments for the 3resident to
ma'e with the #artici#ation of the Commission on A##ointments, so a,so has the Constitution
mandated that the 3resident can confer no #ower of #artici#ation in the Commission on
A##ointments o&er other a##ointments e*c,usi&e,y reser&ed for her "y the Constitution. $he
e*ercise of #o,itica, o#tions that finds no su##ort in the Constitution cannot "e sustained.
;urther, )<)= ; $H) 3R)+!)=$ %A> <O?@=$AR?> +@B%$ $O $H)
CO%%++O= O= A33O=$%)=$+ A= A33O=$%)=$ $HA$ @=!)R $H)
CO=+$$@$O= +O?)?> B)?O=A+ $O H)R, +$??, $H)R) 4A+ =O <ACA=C> $O
4HCH A= A33O=$%)=$ CO@?! B) %A!) O= 1. /A=@AR> 1989. $here can "e no
ad interim a##ointments in the CHR for the a##ointment thereto is not su"5ect to CoA-s
confirmation. A##ointments to the CHr is a,ways #ermanent in nature.
$he #ro&isions of )O 1012A is unconstitutiona, and cannot "e in&o'ed "y %a,,i,,in. $he
Chairman and the Commissioners of the CHR cannot "e remo&ed at the #,easure of the
#resident for it is constitutiona,,y guaranteed that they must ha&e a term of office.
204 SCRA 483 Political Law Constitutional Law The Constitutional Commissions Commission on
Human Rights Adudicato!" Powe! o# the CHR
On +e#tem"er 17, 199B, some 8BB #u",ic schoo, teachers in %ani,a did not attend wor' and decided to stage
ra,,ies in order to air grie&ances. As a resu,t thereof, eight teachers were sus#ended from wor' for 9B days. $he
issue was then in&estigated, and on !ecem"er 17, 199B, !)C+ +ecretary sidro CariCo ordered the dismissa,
from the ser&ice of one teacher and the sus#ension of three others. $he case was a##ea,ed to the Commission on
Human Rights. n the meantime, the +o,icitor Aenera, fi,ed an action for certiorari regarding the case and
#rohi"iting the CHR from continuing the case. =e&erthe,ess, CHR continued tria, and issued a su"#oena to
+ecretary CariCo.
ISSUE: 4hether or not CHR has the #ower to try and decide and determine certain s#ecific cases such as the
a,,eged human rights &io,ation in&o,&ing ci&i, and #o,itica, rights.
HELD: =o. $he CHR is not com#etent to try such case. t has no 5udicia, #ower. t can on,y in&estigate a,,
forms of human rights &io,ation in&o,&ing ci&i, and #o,itica, rights "ut it cannot and shou,d not try and decide
on the merits and matters in&o,&ed therein. $he CHR is hence then "arred from #roceeding with the tria,.
E*#ort Processing Zone Authority &s CHR,
<a,,es, A,edia and Ordone9A.R. =o. 1B1.70 A#ri, 1., 1992;actsD<a,,es, Aedia and Ordone9
fi,ed with CHR a 5oint com#,aint against )3EA for a,,eged,y &io,ating theirhuman rights when
)3EA 3ro5ect )ngineer !amondamon a,ong with 21Fth
3=3 Com#any tried to ,e&e, the areaoccu#ied "y com#,ainants.$he same #arce, of ,and was
reser&ed and a,,ocated for #ur#ose of de&e,o#ment into Ca&ite )*#ort3rocessing Eone which
was "ought "y ;i,oi, Refinery Cor#oration and was ,ater so,d to )3EA.CHR issued an order of
in5unction for )3EA and com#any to desist from committing further acts of demo,ition,
terrorism and harassment unti, further order. 2 wee's ,ater the grou# started "u,,do9ing the
areaand CHR reiterated its order of in5unction, inc,uding the +ecretary of 3u",ic 4or's and
Highways to desist fromdoing wor' on the area. )3EA fi,ed a motion to ,ife the order with
CHR for ,ac' of authority and said motion wasdismissed.)3EA fi,ed the case at "ar for
certiorari and #rohi"ition a,,eging that CHR acted in e*cess of
its 5urisdiction in issuing a restraining order and in5uncti&e writG that the #ri&ate res#ondents ha&
e no c,ear and#ositi&e right to "e #rotected "y an in5unctionG and that CHR a"used its discretion
in entertaining the com#,aint.
EPZAs petition was granted and a TRO was issued ordering CHR to cease and desist
ro!
enforcing(im#,ementing the in5unction orders. CHR commented that its function is not ,imited
to merein&estigation 7Art. 11, +ec. 18 of the 1987 Constitution8.
ssueD 4O= CHR has the 5urisdiction to issue a writ of in5unction or restraining order against
su##osed &io,atorsof human rights, to com#e, them to cease and desist from continuing the acts
com#,ained of.
Ru,ingDn Carino &s CHR, it was he,d that CHR is not a court of 5ustice nor e&en a Huasi2
5udicia, "ody. $he mostthat may "e conceded to the Commission in the way of ad5udicati&e
#ower is that it may in&estigate, i.e., recei&ee&idence and ma'e findings of fact as regards
c,aimed human rights &io,ations in&o,&ing ci&i, and #o,itica, rights.But fact2finding is not
ad5udication, and cannot "e ,i'ened to the 5udicia, function of a court of 5ustice, or e&en aHuasi2
5udicia, agency or officia,. $he function of recei&ing e&idence and ascertaining therefrom the
facts of acontro&ersy is not a 5udicia, function, #ro#er,y s#ea'ing. $he constitutiona, #ro&ision
directing the CHR toI#ro&ide for #re&enti&e measures and ,ega, aid ser&ices to the
under#ri&i,eged whose human rights ha&e "een&io,ated or need #rotectionI may not "e
construed to confer 5urisdiction on the Commission to issue arestraining order or writ of
in5unction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution wou,d ha&e e*#ress,y saidso.
/urisdiction is conferred "y ,aw and ne&er deri&ed "y im#,ication.)&ident,y, the I#re&enti&e
measures and ,ega, aid ser&icesI mentioned in the Constitution refer toe*tra5udicia, and 5udicia,
remedies 7inc,uding a #re,iminary writ of in5unction8 which the CHR may see' from the#ro#er
courts on "eha,f of the &ictims of human rights &io,ations. =ot "eing a court of 5ustice, the CHR
itse,f hasno 5urisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of #re,iminary in5unction may on,y "e issued
I"y the 5udge of anycourt in which the action is #ending Jwithin his districtK, or "y a /ustice of
the Court of A##ea,s, or of the+u#reme Court.A writ of #re,iminary in5unction is an anci,,ary
remedy. t is a&ai,a",e on,y in a #ending #rinci#a, action,for the #reser&ation or #rotection of the
rights and interest of a #arty thereto, and for no other #ur#ose.
EPZAs
#etition is granted.
Si!on "s# CHR $%#R# &o# '((')( *an )+ ',,-.
CHR$s powe! to cite #o! contempt should %e unde!stood to appl" onl" to&iolations o# its
adopted ope!ational guidelines and !ules o# p!ocedu!eessential to ca!!" out its
in&estigato!ial powe!s'
A I!emo,ition =otice,I dated 9 /u,y 199B, signed "y Car,os Lui m#o 7 one of t he
#et i t i oner s8 i n hi s ca#aci t y as an)*ecuti&e Officer of the Lue9on City
ntegrated Haw'ers%anagement Counci, under the Office of the City %ayor, wassent to, and
recei&ed "y, the #ri&ate res#ondents 7"eing theofficers and mem"ers of the =orth )!+A
<endors Association,ncor#orated8. n said notice, the res#ondents were gi&en agrace2#eriod
of three 718 days 7u# to 12 /u,y 199B8 withinwhich to &acate
the Huestioned #remises of =orth )!+A.3rior to their recei#t of the demo,ition notice, the
#ri&ateres#ondents were informed "y #etitioner Luim#o that theirsta,,s shou,d "e remo&ed to
gi&e way to the I3eo#,eMs 3ar'I.On 12 /u,y 199B, the grou#, ,ed "y their 3resident
RoHue;ermo, fi,ed a ,etter2com#,aint 73inag2samang +inum#aang+a,aysay8 with the CHR
against the #etitioners, as'ing the,ate CHR Chairman %ary Conce#cion Bautista for a
,etter to"e addressed to then %ayor Brigido +imon, /r., of Lue9onCity to sto# the
demo,ition of the #ri&ate res#ondentsM sta,,s,sar i 2
s ar i st or es , and car i nder i a a, ong =or t h )!+A. $hecom#,aint was doc'eted as
CHR Case =o. 9B21F8B. On 21 /u,y199B, the CHR issued an Order, directing the #etitioners
Itodesist from demo,ishing the sta,,s and shanties at =orth
)!+A#ending reso,ution of the &endors(sHuattersM com#,aint"efore the
CommissionI and ordering said #etitioners toa##ear "efore the CHR. n an Order,
dated 2F +e#tem"er199B, the CHR cited the #etitioners in contem#t for
carryingout t he demo, i t i on of t he s t a, , s, s ar i 2 sar i s t or es andcarinderia des#ite the
Iorder to desistI, and it im#osed a fineof 3FBB.BB on each of them.ssueD 4hether or not the
CHR has 5urisdictionDa8to in&estigate the a,,eged &io,ations of the I"usiness rightsI of
the #ri&ate res#ondents whose sta,,s weredemo,ished "y the #etitioners at the instance
andauthority gi&en "y the %ayor of Lue9on CityG
"8
to im#ose the fine of 3FBB.BB each on the #etitionersfor contem#tGHe,dD
a8 Reca,,ing the de,i"erations of the Constitutiona,Commission, aforeHuoted,
it is readi,y a##arent that thede,egates en&isioned a Commission on Human Rights
thatwou,d focus its attention to the more se&ere cases of humanrights &io,ations. !e,egate
Aarcia, for instance, mentioneds uch ar eas as t he I7 18 #r ot ect i on of r i ght s
of #o, i t i ca, detainees, 728 treatment of #risoners and the #re&ention
of t o r t u r e s , 7 1 8 f a i r a n d # u " , i c t r i a , s , 7 . 8 c a s e s o f disa##earances,
7F8 sa,&agings and ham,etting, and 708
otherc r i me s c o mmi t t e d a g a i n s t t h e r e , i g i o u s . I 4h i , e t h e enumer at i on h
as not , i 'e, y "een meant t o ha&e any#rec,usi&e effect, more than 5ust e*#ressing a
statement of #riority, it is, nonethe,ess, significant for the tone it has set.n any e&ent, the
de,egates did not a##arent,y ta'e comfortin #erem#tori,y ma'ing a conc,usi&e de,ineation of the
CHRMssco#e of in&estigatoria, 5urisdiction. $hey ha&e thus seen itfit to reso,&e, instead, that
ICongress may #ro&ide for othercases of &io,ations of human rights that shou,d fa,, within
theaut hor i t y of t he Commi s s i on, t a'i ng i nt o account i t s recommendation.I n the
#articu,ar case at hand, there is noca&i, that what are sought to "e demo,ished are the sta,,s,sari2
sari stores and carinderia, as we,, as tem#orary shanties,erected "y #ri&ate res#ondents on a ,and
which is #,anned to"e de&e,o#ed into a I3eo#,eMs 3ar'I. %ore than that, the ,andad5oins the
=orth )!+A of Lue9on City which, this Court canta'e 5udicia, notice of, is a "usy
nationa, highway. $heconseHuent danger to ,ife and ,im" is not thus to "e ,i'ewisesim#,y
ignored. t is indeed #arado*ica, that a right which isc,aimed to ha&e "een &io,ated is one that
cannot, in the first#,ace, e&en "e in&o'ed, if it is, in fact, e*tant. Be that as itmay, ,oo'ing at the
standards hereina"o&e discoursed &is2a2&is the circumstances o"taining in this instance, we are
not#re#ared to conc,ude that the order for the demo,ition of thest a, , s , sar i 2
s ar i st or es and car i nder i a of t he #r i &at eres#ondents can fa,, within the
com#artment of Ihumanrights &io,ations in&o,&ing ci&i, and #o,itica, rightsI intended"y the
Constitution."8 =o, on its contem#t #owers, the CHR is constitutiona,,yauthori9ed to
Iado#t its o#erationa, guide,ines and ru,es of #rocedure, and cite for contem#t for
&io,ations thereof inaccordance with the Ru,es of Court.I According,y,
the CHRacted within its authority in #ro&iding in its re&ised ru,es, its#ower
It o ci t e or ho, d any #er son i n
di r ect or i ndi r ect cont em#t , and t o i m#os e t he a##r o#r i at e #ena, t i es i naccord
ance with the #rocedure and sanctions #ro&ided for int he Ru, es
of Cour t . I $hat #ower t o ci t e f or cont em#t , howe&er, shou,d "e understood to a##,y
on,y to &io,ations of its ado#ted o#erationa, guide,ines
and ru,es of #rocedureess ent i a, t o car r y out i t s i n&es t i gat or i a, #ower s. $oe*e
m#,ify, the #ower to cite for contem#t cou,d "e e*ercisedagainst #ersons who refuse to
coo#erate with the said "ody,or who undu,y withho,d re,e&ant information, or who dec,ineto
honor summons, and the ,i'e, in #ursuing its in&estigati&ewor '. $he
Ior der t o desi st I 7 a s emant i c i nt er #, ay f or arestraining order8 in the instance "efore
us, howe&er, is
noti n & e s t i g a t o r i a , i n c h a r a c t e r " u t # r e s c i n d s f r o m a n ad5udicati&e #ower
that it does not #ossess.
DIGEST: CHREA vs CHR 444 SCRA 300 (2004)
Facts:
1.RA 8522 or the General Appropriations Act of 1998 provided special provisions applicable to all
Constitutional Ofces.
2.The Commission on Human Rights through then its Chair, Aurora P. Navarette Recina and
Commissioner Nasser A. Marohomsalic, Mercedes V. Contreras, Vicente P. Sibulo and Jorge R.
Coquia upgraded or raised the salaries (A98-0555 October 1998) reclassifed selection positions
(Resolution No. A98-047 September, 1998) and collapsed vacant positions (A98-062 November
1998) without the approval of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
3.The petitioners Commission on Human Rights Employees Association (CHREA) through its then
President Marcial A. Sanchez, Jr. fled a petition before the Court of Appeals alleging that they
have locus standi because the reorganization demoralizes the rank and fle employees and will only
beneft those in top positions; but, the Court of Appeals (CA) exempted the CHR from the Salary
Standardization Law.
Issue: Whether the fscal autonomy enjoyed the CHR emp0wers them to reclassify, adjust salaries and
collapse vacant positions without the approval of DBM?
Held: No. The Supreme Court held that the duty of DBM is to ascertain that the proposed compensation,
benefts and other incentives be given in adherence to the policies and guidelines in accordance with
applicable laws. The mandate of the DBM under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, Section 4,
Chapter 1, Title XVII to wit: shall assist the President in the preparation of a nationalresources and
expenditures budget, preparation, execution and control of the National Budget, preparation and
maintenance of accounting systems essential to the budgetary process, achievement of more economy
and efciency in the management of government operations, administration of compensation and position
classifcation systems, assessment of organizational efectiveness and review and evaluation of legislative
proposals having budgetary or organizational implications. Furthermore, Administrative Code, in Chapter
5, Sections 24 and 26 of Book II on Distribution of Powers of Government, the constitutional commissions
shall include only the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on
Audit, which are granted independence and fscal autonomy.