Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Who we are
CHR is an “A” accredited NHRI, fully complying with the Paris Principles
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1995. As an NHRI, the
Commission upholds six fundamental characteristics — independence,
pluralism, broad mandate, transparency, accessibility, and operational
efficiency.
HISTORY
The CHR was created as a response to the atrocities committed during
Martial Law. When the 1987 Philippine Constitution was drafted, Article
XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights clearly defined the creation of the
Commission.
MISSION
As conscience of government and the people, we seek truth in human
rights issues. As beacon of truth, we make people aware of their rights,
and guide government and society towards actions that respect the rights
of all, particularly those who cannot defend themselves — the
disadvantaged, marginalized, and vulnerable.
MANTRA
CHR: Dignity of all
The words without reappointment appear twice in Section 1(2) of Article IX-D, the
first time in the first sentence and the second time in the second sentence.
The counterpart provision in the 1935 Constitution uses the phrase may not be
reappointed and the phrase appears only once. Section 1, Article XI of the 1935
Constitution provides:
To repeat, while the first sentence of Section 1, Article XI of the 1935 Constitution
contains the words may not be reappointed, the succeeding sentences do not. In
contrast, the words without reappointment appears in the first and second sentences
of Section 1(2), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. This difference is pivotal in the
resolution of the present case.
The framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately disallowed a situation where, in the
words of Commissioner Vicente Foz, the appointee serves only for less than seven
years, (and) would be entitled to reappointment, which was the case of Visarra v.
Miraflor, to the effect that x x x in cases where the appointee serves only for less
3
This Court can no longer resurrect Visarra because the 1987 Constitution itself has
rejected Visarra, particularly, in the words of Commissioner Foz, the concurring
opinion of Justice Angelo Bautista. In his concurring opinion, Justice Bautista
concluded that the appointment of Associate Commissioner Garcia to Chairman of
the Commission is valid. This Court has no power to undo what the framers have so
clearly written in the Constitution. To repeat, the framers of the 1987 Constitution
expressly rejected the Visarra ruling, in particular the concurring opinion of
Justice Bautista, and instead adopted the dissenting opinions of Justices Roberto
Concepcion and JBL Reyes.