Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Mayor Brigido Simon v. CHR

    Uploaded by

    eemiarose
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the powers of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to issue subpoenas and hold people in contempt. The Court held that while the CHR has the authority to adopt rules of procedure and cite people for contempt of those rules, this power is limited to violations related to its investigatory powers. The "order to desist" in this case was not investigatory in nature but rather presumed an unauthorized adjudicative power. As the Constitution did not expressly grant the CHR jurisdiction to issue restraining orders, it exceeded its authority in citing the petitioners for contempt for disregarding the "order to desist" the demolition of stalls and stores.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mayor Brigido Simon v. CHR

    Uploaded by

    eemiarose
    73 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the powers of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to issue subpoenas and hold people in contempt. The Court held that while the CHR has the authority to adopt rules of procedure and cite people for contempt of those rules, this power is limited to violations related to its investigatory powers. The "order to desist" in this case was not investigatory in nature but rather presumed an unauthorized adjudicative power. As the Constitution did not expressly grant the CHR jurisdiction to issue restraining orders, it exceeded its authority in citing the petitioners for contempt for disregarding the "order to desist" the demolition of stalls and stores.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the powers of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to issue subpoenas and hold people in contempt. The Court held that while the CHR has the authority to adopt rules of procedure and cite people for contempt of those rules, this power is limited to violations related to its investigatory powers. The "order to desist" in this case was not investigatory in nature but rather presumed an unauthorized adjudicative power. As the Constitution did not expressly grant the CHR jurisdiction to issue restraining orders, it exceeded its authority in citing the petitioners for contempt for disregarding the "order to desist" the demolition of stalls and stores.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views2 pages

    Mayor Brigido Simon v. CHR

    Uploaded by

    eemiarose
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the powers of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to issue subpoenas and hold people in contempt. The Court held that while the CHR has the authority to adopt rules of procedure and cite people for contempt of those rules, this power is limited to violations related to its investigatory powers. The "order to desist" in this case was not investigatory in nature but rather presumed an unauthorized adjudicative power. As the Constitution did not expressly grant the CHR jurisdiction to issue restraining orders, it exceeded its authority in citing the petitioners for contempt for disregarding the "order to desist" the demolition of stalls and stores.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Mayor Brigido Simon v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No.

    ,100150, January 5, 1994


    Doctrine: Power to issue subpoena, declare in contempt: allowed only when provided by the law
    creating the administrative agency.
    FACTS:

    PETITIONER

    RESPONDENT

    ISSUE: Whether CHR is correct in citing the petitioners in contempt for carrying out the demolition of the
    stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia despite the "order to desist".
    HELD:
    NO. WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for in this petition is GRANTED. The Commission on Human Rights is
    hereby prohibited from further proceeding with CHR Case No. 90-1580 and from implementing the
    P500.00 fine for contempt. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued by this Court is made
    permanent. No costs.
    RATIO:
    On contempt powers, the CHR is constitutionally authorized to "adopt its operational guidelines and rules
    of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court."
    Accordingly, the CHR acted within its authority in providing in its revised rules, its power "to cite or hold
    any person in direct or indirect contempt, and to impose the appropriate penalties in accordance with the
    procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court."
    That power to cite for contempt, however, should be understood to apply only to violations of its
    adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial
    powers. To exemplify, the power to cite for contempt could be exercised against persons who refuse to
    cooperate with the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant information, or who decline to honor
    summons, and the like, in pursuing its investigative work.
    The "order to desist" (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) in the instance before us, however, is
    not investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess ,
    as reiterated in Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on Human Rights:
    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 a restraining order or writ of injunction
    for, it that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so.
    "Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law". It is never derived
    by implication.

    You might also like