Case Summary (G.R. No. 100150)
Key Dates
July 9, 1990 – Demolition notice issued by Quimpo
July 12, 1990 – Private respondents file complaint with CHR (docketed CHR No. 90-1580)
July 23, 1990 – CHR issues order to desist demolition
August 1, 1990 – CHR orders financial assistance and reiterates restraining order
September 25, 1990 – CHR cites petitioners for contempt, imposes P500 fine each
March 1, 1991 – CHR denies motions to dismiss
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution, Article XIII, Section 18: CHR’s authority to investigate human rights violations involving civil and political rights and adopt rules with contempt power
Factual Background
Private respondents operated stalls, sari-sari stores, carinderia and temporary shanties on government land along North EDSA. They received three days’ notice to vacate for a proposed “People’s Park.” After partial demolition on July 28, petitioners refused to halt operations despite CHR’s July 23 order.
CHR Proceedings and Orders
Upon sworn statements and its ocular inspection, CHR on August 1 ordered: (1) petitioners to desist from further demolition under contempt warning; (2) disbursement of up to P200,000 as financial aid for housing materials and food.
Petitioners’ Challenge
Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the CHR exceeded jurisdiction by addressing “business rights,” that private respondents were entrepreneurs, and that demolition fell under city mayor’s discretion and local moratorium agreements. Supplemental motion asserted CHR’s mandate was limited to civil and political rights, not economic privileges.
Contempt Citation and Financial Aid Contest
CHR cited petitioners for contempt and fined P500 each for defying its order. Petitioners sought prohibition to bar CHR from further proceedings, from enforcing the contempt fines, and from disbursing aid.
Issue Before the Court
Whether under the 1987 Constitution the CHR may:
a) investigate alleged violations of “business rights” arising from demolition;
b) impose contempt fines for defiance of its orders;
c) disburse financial assistance to displaced vendors.
CHR’s Constitutional Mandate
Section 18, Article XIII empowers CHR to:
- Investigate human rights violations involving civil and political rights;
- Adopt procedural rules and cite for contempt;
- Provide legal measures and preventive services; among other functions.
Jurisdictional Scope and Adjudicatory Limits
The Court reaffirmed in Carino v. CHR that CHR is not a quasi-judicial body empowered to adjudicate disputes or issue injunctions. Its investigatory power extends to fact-finding on civil and political rights violations; it cannot definitively determine or enforce substantive rights beyond that scope.
Definition of Civil and Political Rights
Civil rights: rights inherent in citizenship (e.g., property, contract, equal protection).
Political rights: participation in government (e.g., suffrage, public office).
Economic or business privileges (right to engage in commerce) do not fall within CHR’s investigatory mandate.
Contempt Power Limited to Investigatory Procedure
CHR may cite individuals for contempt only when they violate CHR’s procedural rules essential for investigations (e.g., refusal to cooperate, ignoring summons). An order to desist demolition was not procedural but s
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 100150)
Facts
- Petitioners Simon, Quimpo, Abelardo and Ocampo, acting under authority of the Quezon City Integrated Hawkers Management Council, issued a “Demolition Notice” dated 9 July 1990 to the North EDSA Vendors Association, Inc., giving them three days (until 12 July 1990) to vacate their stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia along North EDSA to make way for a “People’s Park.”
- On 12 July 1990, private respondents, led by President Roque Fermo, filed a letter-complaint (Pinag-samang Sinumpaang Salaysay) with the CHR (docketed CHR Case No. 90-1580) asking Chairman Bautista to request Mayor Simon to stop the demolition.
- On 23 July 1990, the CHR issued an order directing petitioners to desist from demolishing the private respondents’ structures pending investigation, and summoned petitioners to appear.
- Based on sworn statements (31 July 1990) and ocular inspection, the CHR found that petitioners proceeded with demolition on 28 July 1990.
- On 1 August 1990, the CHR ordered up to ₱200,000 financial aid for displaced vendors and again directed petitioners to desist, warning of contempt and arrest for violations.
- Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on 10 September 1990, contesting CHR jurisdiction and arguing private respondents were independent entrepreneurs occupying government land, and that business rights violated were not civil and political rights.
- At hearings (12, 21 September 1990), petitioners sought postponement, filed a supplemental motion to dismiss (18 September 1990) asserting CHR’s power is limited to civil and political rights, not business privileges.
- On 25 September 1990, the CHR cited petitioners for contempt and fined each ₱500 for continuing demolition despite the desist order.
- On 1 March 1991, the CHR denied the motions to dismiss, holding it had jurisdiction and is a quasi-judicial body empowered to protect human rights, including the right to earn a living.
- On 25 April 1991, the CHR denied reconsideration. Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition with prayer for TRO before the Supreme Court.
- This Court initially dismissed the petition on 25 June 1991, but reinstated it on 18 June 1991 and issued a TRO directing CHR to cease hearings in CHR Case No. 90-1580.
Issues
- Whether the CHR has jurisdiction to investigate alleged violations of “business rights” arising from the demolition of vendors’ stalls by municipal authority.
- Whether the CHR may impose a contempt fine of ₱500 on each petitioner for non-compliance with its desist order.
- Whether the CHR may disburse up to ₱200,000 as financial assistance to private respondents.
CHR’s Jurisdictional Position
- The CHR invoked its constitutional mandate under Art. XIII, Sec. 18 (1987 Constitution) to investigate “all forms of human rights violat