EZPA v CHR

FACTS
PD 1980 was issued reserving and designating certain parcels of land in Cavite as the Cavite Export
Processing Zone. It was divided into Phase I-IV where Phase IV was bought by Filoil Refinery Corporation
which was later sold to EPZA. Before EPZA could take possession of the land, several individuals entered the
land and planted crops without the permission of EPZA. EPZA paid 10k the intruders as financial assistance
to whoever accepted and made them sign quitclaims.
The respondents allege that on May 20, 1991, Engineer Neron Damondamon (EPZA project engineer) with
his subordinates and members of the PNP, brought bulldozers to level the area occupied by the respondents.
CHR issued an order of injunction commanding EPZA from committing further acts of demolition, terrorism,
and harassment. SC issued a TRO against CHR to cease and desist from enforcing /implementing the
injunction orders. CHR asked for the lifting of the TRO contending that its principal function is not limited to
mere investigation based on Art 13, sec 18.
ISSUE:
Do the CHR have jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction or restraining order against supposed violators of
human rights, to compel them to cease and desist from continuing the acts complained of?
HELD:
No, CHRs principal function does not include the issuance of said orders.
Hon. Isidro Carino et al v CHR: CHR is not a court of justice or a quasi-judicial body. The commission has
adjudicative power in that it may investigate regarding claimed human rights violations. But fact-finding is not
adjudication and cant be likened to the judicial function of the court or even a quasi-judicial agency.
The Constitutional provision directing the CHR to provide for preventive measures and legal aid services
may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction,
if it were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so.
The preventive measures and legal aid services refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedied which the CHR
may seek from the proper courts. Not being a court of justice, the CHR has no jurisdiction to the writ because
this may only be issued by a proper court.
Padilla, J, dissenting:
CHR has the authority in appropriate cases to provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the
under privilege whose human rights have been violated or need protection
If CHR cannot issue any cease and desist order to maintain status quo to pending investigations then it is an
ineffective instrument for the protection of human rights. It may issue such order in situations involving
threatened violation of human rights, which it tends to investigate, and such order may be judicially
challenged like the other consti commissions.

Simon v CHR
FACTS:
A Demolition Notice was sent and received by respondents. The notice gave a 3-day grace period to vacate
the premises of North EDSA. Prior to the notice, the respondents were informed that their stall should be
removed to give way to the Peoples Park
The respondents filed a letter-complaint with the CHR against petitioners asking the latter for a letter to be
addressed to Mayor Brigido Simon to stop the demolition. CHR issued an order to the petitioners to desist
from demolishing the stalls.

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss and questioned the jurisdiction of the CHR. They added that CHRs
authority should be confined only to investigation of violations of civil and political rights, and that the rights
violated here were not civil or political.
CHR cited petitioners for contempt and denied the motion of the petitioners to dismiss. It stated that it had the
jurisdiction over the complaint. It opined that it should be considered a quasi-judicial body with the power to
provided appropriate legal measure for the protection of all human rights
ISSUE:
1. W/N CHR has jurisdiction to investigate the alleged violation of the business rights of the respondents
whose stalls were demolished
2. What is the extent of CHRs investigative power?
3. Does CHR have contempt powers
HELD:
1. No, CHR has no jurisdiction to investigate the alleged violation. As stated in Carino v CHR, only the
power and function to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights given
to the CHR bears any resemblance to adjudication.
Hon. Isidro Carino et al v CHR: CHR is not a court of justice or a quasi-judicial body. The commission has
adjudicative power in that it may investigate regarding claimed human rights violations. But fact-finding is not
adjudication and cant be likened to the judicial function of the court or even a quasi-judicial agency.
The order to desist issued by the commission in this case is not investigatorial in character but prescinds from
an adjudicative power that it does not possess.
EPZA v CHR: The Constitutional provision directing the CHR to provide for preventive measures and legal
aid services may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the commission to issue a restraining order or writ
of injunction, if it were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so
The preventive measures and legal aid services refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedied which the CHR
may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations.
The commission does not have legal standing to indorse, for appropriate action, its finding and
recommendations to any appropriate agency of the government
2. The extent is to investigate on civil and political rights violation.
IN UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR, the scope of human rights can be understood to include those that relate to
an individuals social, economic, cultural, political, and civil relations.
Civil rights: rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. May also refer
to, in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action
Political rights: rigths to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of the
government, right to suffrage, to hold public office, right of petition, and in general, the rights appurtenant to
citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government.
Based on the discussion of the ConCom, the delegates envisioned a CHR that would focus on more severe
cases of human rights violation, but not limited to:
1. Protection of rights of political detainees
2. Treatment of prisoners and the prevention of tortures
3. Fair and public trial
4. Cases of disappearances
5. Salvagings and hamletting

6. Other crimes committed against the religious

The case at hand, there is no cavil that what are to be sought to be demolished are the stalls erected on a
land which is planned to be a peoples park. The land is a busy national highway, the danger to life cannot be
ignored. The right that is claimed to be violated is one that cannot be invoked, if it is, in fact, extant.
The court held that it is not prepared to conclude that the order of demolition of the stalls can fall within the
compartment of human rights violations involving civil and political rights intended by the constitution.
3. Yes, it does.
CHR is authorized to adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations in accordance with the rules of court. CHR acted within its authority in providing its power to cite or
hold any person on direct or indirect contempt. The 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
investigative powers.
This power could be exercised against those who: refuse to cooperated with CHR, withhold relevant
information or decline to honor summons
Padilla, J, dissenting
I am of the most considered view that CHR can issue a cease and desist order to maintain a status quo
pending its investigation of a case involving alleged human rights violation.
I would consider the threatened demolition of the stalls as posing a prima facie a case of uman rights violation
because it involves an impairment of the civil rights of the respondents.

Meyer v Nebraska
FACTS:
A Nebraska Law, An Act Relating to the Teaching of Foreign Languages on the State of Nebraska, prohibited
the teaching of foreign languages to students, unless they have already passed the 8th grade and violation of
the same amounts to a misdemeanor and is punishable by fine and imprisonment.
The intent of the law was to curb the baneful effects of the settlement of foreigners who rear their children in
their native tongue and inculcate ideas inconsistent with American ideals
Meyer, an instructor at the Zion Parochial School, was convicted under the said law for teaching the German
language to a 10-year old child, who had not attained and successfully passed the 8th grade.
State SC affirmed the judgment and declared that the offense charged and established was a direct and
intentional teaching of German as a distinct subject to a child who had not passed 8th grade. The act
forbidding this didnt conflict with the 14th amendment
ISSUE:
Whether the statute, as construed and applied, unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in
error by the 14th amendment
HELD:
Yes, the statue infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff.
Liberty denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract,
engage in any occupations of life, etc. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with,
under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable
relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.
Mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful. Meyer taught this

language in school as part of his occupation. His right to teach and the right of the parent to engage him to
instruct their children are within the liberty of the amendment
The state may do much in order to improve the quality of its citizens but the individual has certain fundamental
rights which must be respected.
While the intent of the law is valid, the means adopted is arbitrary, as it exceeded the limitations of State
power and conflicted with the rights assured to Meyer.
Adams v Tanner: mere abuse incident to an occupation ordinarily useful is not enough to justify its abolition,
although regulation may be entirely proper. No emergency has arisen which renders the knowledge by a child
of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition

Pierce v Society of Sisters

FACTS:
The Compulsory Education Act of 1992 required that every parent or guardian of a child between 8-16 years
old to send their children to a public school for a certain period and violation thereof amounts to a
misdemeanor.
The purpose of the law is to compel general attendance in public schools by normal children who have yet to
complete the 8th grade
Society of Sisters, a corporation that engages in the business of primary and secondary schooling and owns
considerable educational facilities, assailed the validity of the law for violating the parents right to rear their
children, not to mention that SOCIETY stands to lose considerable profits due to the enforcement of the law
ISSUE:
W/N the act interfered with the liberty granted by the Constitution
HELD:
Yes, it does.
The result of enforcing the act would be destruction of the appellees primary schools, and perhaps all other
private primary school.
The Act of 1992 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of the parents and guardians to direct the upbringing
and education of children under their control. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged
by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state.
The theory of liberty excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to
accept instruction from public school teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state. Those who
nurture him and direct his destiny have the right to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations