Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

SIMON, JR.

vs COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS


G.R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994
FACTS:
On July 23, 1990, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued and order,
directing the petitioners "to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North
EDSA pending the resolution of the vendors/squatters complaint before the
Commission" and ordering said petitioners to appear before the CHR.
On September 10, 1990, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss questioning CHR's
jurisdiction and supplemental motion to dismiss was filed on September 18, 1990
stating that Commissioners' authority should be understood as being confined only
to the investigation of violations of civil and political rights, and that "the rights
allegedly violated in this case were not civil and political rights, but their privilege to
engage in business".
On March 1, 1991, the CHR issued and Order denying petitioners' motion and
supplemental motion to dismiss. And petitioners' motion for reconsideration was
denied also in an Order, dated April 25, 1991.
The Petitioner filed a a petition for prohibition, praying for a restraining order and
preliminary injunction. Petitioner also prayed to prohibit CHR from further hearing
and investigating CHR Case No. 90-1580, entitled "Ferno, et.al vs. Quimpo,

et.al".
ISSUE:
Is the issuance of an "order to desist" within the extent of the authority and power
of the CRH?
HELD:
No, the issuance of an "order to desist" is not within the extent of authority and
power of the CHR. Article XIII, Section 18(1), provides the power and functions of the
CHR to "investigate, on its own or on complaint by any part, all forms of human
rights violation, involving civil and political rights".
The "order to desist" however is not investigatory in character but an adjudicative
power that the it does not possess. 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 an restraining order or writ of
injunction, for it 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 in any court in which
the action is pending or by a Justice of the CA or of the SC.
The writ prayed for the petition is granted. The CHR is hereby prohibited from
further proceeding with CHR Case No. 90-1580.

Isidro Cario vs The Commission on Human Rights


FACTS: On September 17, 1990, some 800 public school teachers in Manila did not
attend work and decided to stage rallies in order to air grievances. As a result
thereof, eight teachers were suspended from work for 90 days. The issue was then
investigated, and on December 17, 1990, DECS Secretary Isidro Cario ordered the
dismissal from the service of one teacher and the suspension of three others. The
case was appealed to the Commission on Human Rights. In the meantime, the
Solicitor General filed an action for certiorari regarding the case and prohibiting the
CHR from continuing the case. Nevertheless, CHR continued trial and issued a
subpoena to Secretary Cario.
ISSUE: Whether or not CHR has the power to try and decide and determine certain
specific cases such as the alleged human rights violation involving civil and political
rights.
HELD: No. The CHR is not competent to try such case. It has no judicial power. It
can only investigate all forms of human rights violation involving civil and political
rights but it cannot and should not try and decide on the merits and matters
involved therein. The CHR is hence then barred from proceeding with the trial.

Laguna Lake Development Authority v CA


GR No. 110120
March 16, 1994
FACTS:
The LLDA Legal and Technical personnel found that the City Government of
Caloocan was maintaining an open dumpsite at the Camarin area without first
securing
an
Environmental
Compliance
Certificate
(ECC)
from
the
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, as required under Presidential Decree N o. 1586, and
clearance from LLDA as required under Republic Act N o. 4850 and issued a CEASE
and DESIST ORDER (CDO) for the City Government of Caloocan to stop the use of
the dumpsite.

ISSUES:
Whether or not health is part of human right?
RULING:
The LLDA, by virtue of its special charter, obviously has the responsibility to protect
the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of
pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding
areas. As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the
correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but in consonance with the declared
policy of the state "to protect and promote the right to health of the people and
instill health consciousness among them." It is to be borne in mind that the
Philippines is party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma
Conference Declaration of 1978 which recognize health as a fundamental human
right.
Thus in Article 2
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people
and instill health consciousness among them.
Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.