Mayor Simon v. Commission On Human Rights January 5, 1994 Vitug, J Digester: Plaza

SUMMARY: A demolition notice was issued by the QC Office of City Mayor, ordering the demolition of the Vendors stalls and temporary shanties. The Vendors along the QC North EDSA sidewalk filed a letter-complaint before the CHR against QC officers, including its Mayor, for alleged violations of human rights. CHR issued an Order directing the QC Officers to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending resolution of the complaint. Demolition was conducted and CHR cited the officers in contempt. QC Officers filed a motion to dismiss. Denied. Petitioner filed the present petition for prohibition,HELD: CHR prohibited from proceeding with the case. CHR is not a quasi-judicial body and is acting beyond the powers and functions granted by the Constitution. DOCTRINE: From deliberations of the Con Com it is readily apparent that the delegates envisioned a CHR that would focus its attention to the more SEVERE cases of human rights violations. SC is not prepared to conclude that the order for demolition can fall within the compartment of human rights violations involving civil and political rights intended by the Constitution Civil rights those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or country or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. 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 Political rights - 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 On the contempt power of CHR: that 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. A Demolition Notice, signed by Carlos Quimpo in his capacity as Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers Management Council under the Office of the City Mayor, was sent to, and received by, the private respondents. The private respondents are the officers and members of the North EDSA Vendors Association, Incorporated (Vendors).2. The Demolition Notice gave the Vendors a 3-day grace period within which to vacate the questioned premises of North EDSA. Prior to this Demolition Notice, Quimpo informed the Vendors that their stalls should be removed to make way to the Peoples Park.3. COMPLAINT BY VENDORS: The Vendors (President Roque Fermo) filed a letter-complaint with the CHR against the petitioners, Quezon City Officers (including Mayor Simon). Prayed that the Commissioner write a letter to Mayor Simon to stop the demolition of the Vendors stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia along North EDSA. 4. CHR issued an Order directing the QC Officers to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending resolution of the complaint. 5. Demolition was still carried out. 6. CHR RESOLUTION: CHR issued its Resolution ordering The disbursement of financial assistance of not more than 200k in favor of the Vendors to purchase light housing materials and food The QC Officers to desist from further demolition, with a warning that violation of this order would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest 7. QC officers filed a motion to dismiss: a. the CHRs authority should be understood as being confined only to the investigation of violations of civil and political rights. The rights allegedly violated in this case were not civil and political but their privilege to engage in business. b. The CHR has no jurisdiction c. This came about due to the alleged violation by the QC Officers of the Inter-Agency Memorandum of Agreement whereby Metro Manila Mayors agreed on moratorium in the demolition of the dwellings of poor dwellers in Metro Manila But there was no violation since the Vendors were not poor dwellers but independent business entrepreneurs d. The Vendors were occupying government land, the sidewalk of EDSA corner North Ave e. QC Mayor had the sole and exclusive jurisdiction and authority whether or not a certain business should be allowed to operate within the city 8. CHR ORDERS: The CHR denied the MTD and cited the QC Officers in contempt for carrying out the demolition despite the order to desist and imposed a P500 fine a. CHR under its constitutional mandate had jurisdiction over the complaint of the Vendors who complained of the gross violations of their human and constitutional rights b. It was not the intention of the Con Comm to create only a paper tiger only to investigating civil and political rights; the CHR should be considered a quasi-judicial body with power to provide appropriate legal measures for protection of human rights of all persons c. Right to earn a living is a right essential to ones right to development, to life, and to dignity 9. The QC Officers went to the SC on a petition for prohibition.

ISSUE & HELD: WON the CHR should continue with its proceedings. NO. The CHR is not a quasi-judicial body and only has investigative powers.

RATIO:

Powers and functions:[footnoteRef:1] [1: Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court 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 Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights 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 Monitor the Philippine Governments compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights 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 Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with the law Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law ]

The powers and functions of the CHR are defined by the 1987 Constitution. It is not a quasi-judicial body. The CHR was created by the 1987 Constitution; formally constituted by Pres. Aquino via EO 163

The CHR is NOT a quasi-judicial body Carino v. CHR: a. Only the first of the enumerated powers and functions bears any resemblance to adjudication or adjudgment but this is not synonymous to adjudicatory power itself b. CHR was not meant by the Constitution to be another court or quasi-judicial body c. The most that can be conceded is that it may investigate i. But fact finding is not adjudication ii. To be adjudicative, there must be authority of applying the law to the end that the controversy may be decided. iii. The CHR has no such function

Extent of CHRs investigative power

Discussion on Human Rights: 1. Human rights is so generic a term that any attempt to define it could at best be considered inconclusive 2. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, as well as, or more specifically, the International Convention 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 individuals social, economic, cultural, political and civil relations. 3. 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 its inherent and inalienable rights, encompassing almost all aspects of life The ponente is, in effect, saying that the above definition of human rights is too encompassing and too broad that it was not contemplated by the 1987 framers. He cites the Con Com records during the discussion on the CHR provision

Court then went into definitions: Civil rights those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or country or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. 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 Political rights - 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

From the deliberations of the Con Com it is readily apparent that the delegates envisioned a CHR that would focus its attention to the more SEVERE cases of human rights violations Delegate Garcia mentioned areas such as: protection of rights of political detainees, treatment of prisoners and the prevention of torture, fair and public trials, cases of disappearances, salvagings and hamletting and other crimes committed against the religious While the enumeration is not exclusive, it is nonetheless significant for the tone it has set

In any event, the Con Com did not apparently take comfort in peremptorily making a conclusive delineation of the CHRs scope of investigatorial jurisdiction Instead, Congress may provide for other cases of violation of human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendation

In the case at bar:1. What are sought to be demolished are stalls, sari-sari stores and carnderia, temporary shanties, erected by Vendors on a land which is planned to be developed into a Peoples Park 2. The land adjoins the North EDSA of QC which is a busy national highway 3. Hence, the danger to life and limb cannot be ignored SC is not prepared to conclude that the order for demolition can fall within the compartment of human rights violations involving civil and political rights intended by the Constitution

On its contempt powers: 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. In this case, the order to desist (which is really a TRO) is not investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess