Simon JR Vs CHR Case Presentation

Simon Jr.
V CHR
GR No. 100150, January 05, 1994
FACTS:
 On July 9, 1990, a "Demolition Notice,” issued by the Quezon City Mayor, was sent to,
and received by, the private respondents. In said notice states that the respondent
has a 3 – day grace periood to vacate their premises to give way to the construction
of People’s Park therein,
 On July 12,1990, private respondents, filed a letter-complaint with the CHR against the
petitioners, asking for a letter to be addressed to then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr. of
Quezon City to stop the demolition of the private respondents'stalls, sari-sari stores, and
carinderia along North EDSA. CHR issued a preliminary order directing the petitioners to
desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending resolution of the
vendors/squatters' complaint before the Commission" and ordering said petitioners to
appear before the CHR.
 Petitioners started the demolition despite CHR’s order to desist. Respondents
consequently asked that petitioner’s be cited in contempt.
 Meanwhile, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by respondents.
They alleged that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the complaint as it involved
respondents’ privilege to engage in business, not their civil and political rights.
 In an Order, 11 dated 25 September 1990, the CHR cited the petitioners in
contempt for carrying out the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and
carinderia despite the "order to desist", and it imposed a fine of P500.00 on each
of them. On March 1,1991, the CHR issued an Order, denying petitioners' motion
to dismiss. The CHR opined that "it was not the intention of the Commission to
create only a paper tiger limited only to investigating civil and political rights, but
it should be considered a quasi-judicial body with the power to provide
appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within
the Philippines " .
 Their Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, petioners Simon Jr. et al
filed a petition for prohibition to enjoin the CHR from hearing private respondents’
complaint.
ISSUE/S
WON CHR has jurisdiction to hear the

complaint and grant the relief prayed for
by respondents.
WON the CHR can investigate the subject

matter of respondents’ complaint.
FIRST ISSUE:
No. Under the constitution, the CHR has no

power to adjudicate.
-Legal Basis:
-Art XIII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the CHR has
the power to investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all
forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.
In Cariño v. CHR, the Court through
Justice Andres Narvasa observed that:
 The Commission on Human Rights was not meant by the fundamental

law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or
duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter.
 The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of
adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and
make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving
civil and political rights.
2ND ISSUE
No. Complaint does not involve civil and

political rights.
CHR’s investigative power encompasses all

forms of human rights violations involving civil
and political rights.
The Case Define the Civil and Political
Rights
CIVIL RIGHTS has been defined as referring to
those rights that belong to every citizen of
the state or country, or, in wider sense, to all
its inhabitants, and are not connected with
the organization or administration of the
government.
POLITICAL RIGHTS, on the other hand, are said
to refer to the right to participate, directly or
indirectly, in the establishment or
administration of government,
CHR focus its attention to the more severe
cases of human rights violations
protection of rights of political detainees
 treatment of prisoners and the prevention of
tortures
 fair and public trials
cases of disappearances
salvagings and hamletting, and
other crimes committed against the religious
Wherefore
The demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores and

carenderia cannot fall within the
compartment of "human rights violations
involving civil and political rights”.
Thank you…

Simon JR Vs CHR Case Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simon JR Vs CHR Case Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simon JR Vs CHR Case Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simon Jr.

WON CHR has jurisdiction to hear the

WON the CHR can investigate the subject

No. Under the constitution, the CHR has no

 The Commission on Human Rights was not meant by the fundamental

No. Complaint does not involve civil and

CHR’s investigative power encompasses all

The demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores and

You might also like