human rights full-text cases

8/12/2019 Human Rights Full-Text Cases

1/22

HUMAN RIGHTS (CHAPTER 7) 1

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 96681. December 2, 1991.]

HON. ISIDRO CARIO, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department ofEducation, Culture & Sports, DR. ERLINDA LOLARGA, in her capacity asSuperintendent of City Schools of Manila,petitioners,vs.THE COMMISSION ONHUMAN RIGHTS, GRACIANO BUDOY, JULIETA BABARAN, ELSA IBABAO,HELEN LUPO, AMPARO GONZALES, LUZ DEL CASTILLO, ELSA REYES andAPOLINARIO ESBER,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

NARVASA, C.J p:

The issue raised in the special civil action of certiorariand prohibition at bar, instituted by the Solicitor General,may be formulated as follows: where the relief sought from the Commission on Human Rights by a party in a caseconsists of the review and reversal or modification of a decision or order issued by a court of justice orgovernment agency or official exercising quasi-judicial functions, may the Commission take cognizance of thecase and grant that relief? Stated otherwise, where a particular subject-matter is placed by law within the

jurisdiction of a court or other government agency or official for purposes of trial and adjudgment, may theCommission on Human Rights take cognizance of the same subject-matter for the same purposes of hearing andadjudication?

The facts narrated in the petition are not denied by the respondents and are hence taken as substantially correctfor purposes of ruling on the legal questions posed in the present action. These facts, 1 together with othersinvolved in related cases recently resolved by this Court,2or otherwise undisputed on the record, are hereunderset forth.

1.On September 17, 1990, a Monday and a class day, some 800 public school teachers, among them membersof the Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertookwhat they described as "mass concerted actions" to "dramatize and highlight" their plight resulting from thealleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been brought to the latter'sattention. According to them they had decided to undertake said "mass concerted actions" after the protest rallystaged at the DECS premises on September 14, 1990 without disrupting classes as a last call for the governmentto negotiate the granting of demands had elicited no response from the Secretary of Education. The "massactions" consisted in staying away from their classes, converging at the Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering inpeaceable assemblies, etc. Through their representatives, the teachers participating in the mass actions were

served with an order of the Secretary of Education to return to work in 24 hours or face dismissal, and amemorandum directing the DECS officials concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did notcomply and to hire their replacements. Those directives notwithstanding, the mass actions continued into theweek, with more teachers joining in the days that followed. 3

Among those who took part in the "concerted mass actions" were the eight (8) private respondents herein,teachers at the Ramon Magsaysay High School, Manila, who had agreed to support the non-political demands of

the MPSTA. 4

2."For failure to heed the return-to-work order, the CHR complainants (private respondents) were administrativelycharged on the basis of the principal's report and given five (5) days to answer the charges. They were alsopreventively suspended for ninety (90) days 'pursuant to Section 41 of P.D. 807' and temporarily replaced(unmarked CHR Exhibits, Annexes F, G, H). An investigation committee was consequently formed to hear thecharges in accordance with P.D. 807."5

3.In the administrative case docketed as Case No. DECS 90-082 in which CHR complainants Graciano Budoy,Jr., Julieta Babaran, Luz del Castillo, Apolinario Esber were, among others, named respondents,6the latter filedseparate answers, opted for a formal investigation, and also moved "for suspension of the administrativeproceedings pending resolution by . . . (the Supreme) Court of their application for issuance of an injunctivewrit/temporary restraining order." But when their motion for suspension was denied by Order dated November 8,1990 of the Investigating Committee, which later also denied their motion for reconsideration orally made at thehearing of November 14, 1990, "the respondents led by their counsel staged a walkout signifying their intent to

boycott the entire proceedings."7The case eventually resulted in a Decision of Secretary Cario dated December17, 1990, rendered after evaluation of the evidence as well as the answers, affidavits and documents submittedby the respondents, decreeing dismissal from the service of Apolinario Esber and the suspension for nine (9)months of Babaran, Budoy and del Castillo. 8

4.In the meantime, the "MPSTA filed a petition for certioraribefore the Regional Trial Court of Manila againstpetitioner (Cario), which was dismissed (unmarked CHR Exhibit, Annex I). Later, the MPSTA went to theSupreme Court (on certiorari,in an attempt to nullify said dismissal, grounded on the) alleged violation of thestriking teachers' right to due process and peaceable assembly docketed as G.R. No. 95445, supra.The ACTalso filed a similar petition before the Supreme Court . . . docketed as G.R. No. 95590." 9 Both petitions in thisCourt were filed in behalf of the teacher associations, a few named individuals, and "other teacher-members sonumerous similarly situated" or "other similarly situated public school teachers too numerous to be impleaded. "LLjur

5.In the meantime, too, the respondent teachers submitted sworn statements dated September 27, 1990 to the

Commission on Human Rights to complain that while they were participating in peaceful mass actions, theysuddenly learned of their replacements as teachers, allegedly without notice and consequently for reasonscompletely unknown to them. 10

6.Their complaintsand those of other teachers also "ordered suspended by the . . . (DECS)," all numberingforty-two (42)were docketed as "Striking Teachers CHR Case No. 90-775." In connection therewith theCommission scheduled a "dialogue" on October 11, 1990, and sent a subpoena to Secretary Cario requiring hisattendance therein. 11
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnotes


2/22


On the day of the "dialogue," although it said that it was "not certain whether he (Sec. Cario) received thesubpoena which was served at his office, . . . (the) Commission, with the Chairman presiding, and CommissionersHesiquio R. Mallilin and Narciso C. Monteiro, proceeded to hear the case;" it heard the complainants' counsel (a)explain that his clients had been "denied due process and suspended without formal notice, and unjustly, sincethey did not join the mass leave," and (b) expatiate on the grievances which were "the cause of the mass leave ofMPSTA teachers, (and) with which causes they (CHR complainants) sympathize."12The Commission thereafterissued an Order13reciting these facts and making the following disposition:

"To be properly apprised of the real facts of the case and be accordingly guided in itsinvestigation and resolution of the matter, considering that these forty two teachersare now suspended and deprived of their wages, which they need very badly,Secretary Isidro Cario, of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, Dr.Erlinda Lolarga, school superintendent of Manila and the Principal of RamonMagsaysay High School, Manila, are hereby enjoined to appear and enlighten theCommission en banc on October 19, 1990 at 11:00 AM. and to bring with them anyand all documents relevant to the allegations aforestated herein to assist theCommission in this matter. Otherwise, the Commission will resolve the complaint onthe basis of complainants' evidence.

xxx xxx xxx."

7.Through the Office of the Solicitor General, Secretary Cario sought and was granted leave to file a motion to

dismiss the case. His motion to dismiss was submitted on November 14, 1990 alleging as grounds therefor, "thatthe complaint states no cause of action and that the CHR has no jurisdiction over the case."14

8.Pending determination by the Commission of the motion to dismiss, judgments affecting the "striking teachers"were promulgated in two (2) cases, as aforestated, viz.: llcd

a)The Decision dated December 17, 1990 of Education Secretary Cario in Case No.DECS 90-082, decreeing dismissal from the service of Apolinario Esber and thesuspension for nine (9) months of Babaran, Budoy and del Castillo;15and

b)The joint Resolution of this Court dated August 6, 1991 in G.R. Nos. 95445 and95590 dismissing the petitions without prejudice to any appeals, if still timely, that theindividual petitioners may take to the Civil Service Commission on the matterscomplained of,"16and inter alia"ruling that it wasprima facielawful for petitionerCario to issue return-to-work orders, file administrative charges against recalcitrants,

preventively suspend them, and issue decision on those charges."17

9.In an Order dated December 28, 1990, respondent Commission denied Sec. Cario's motion to dismiss andrequired him and Superintendent Lolarga "to submit their counter-affidavits within ten (10) days . . . (after which)the Commission shall proceed to hear and resolve the case on the merits with or without respondents counteraffidavit."18It held that the "striking teachers" "were denied due process of law; . . . they should not have beenreplaced without a chance to reply to the administrative charges;" there had been a violation of their civil andpolitical rights which the Commission was empowered to investigate; and while expressing its "utmost respect to

the Supreme Court . . . the facts before . . . (it) are different from those in the case decided by the Supreme Court"(the reference being unmistakably to this Court's joint Resolution of August 6, 1991 in G.R. Nos. 95445 and95590, supra).

It is to invalidate and set aside this Order of December 28, 1990 that the Solicitor General, in behalf of petitioner

Cario, has commenced the present action of certiorariand prohibition.

The Commission on Human Rights has made clear its position that it does not feel bound by this Court's jointResolution in G.R. Nos. 95445 and 95590, supra.It has also made plain its intention "to hear and resolve thecase (i.e., Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775) on the merits." It intends, in other words, to try and decideorhear and determine,i.e., exercise jurisdictionover the following general issues:

1)whether or not the striking teachers were denied due process, and just cause existsfor the imposition of administrative disciplinary sanctions on them by theirsuperiors; and

2)whether or not the grievances which were "the cause of the mass leave of MPSTAteachers, (and) with which causes they (CHR complainants) sympathize,"

justify their mass action or strike.

The Commission evidently intends to itself adjudicate,that is to say, determine with character of finality anddefiniteness, the same issues which have been passed upon and decided by the Secretary of Education, Culture& Sports, subject to appeal to the Civil Service Commission, this Court having in fact, as aforementioned,declared that the teachers affected may take appeals to the Civil Service Commission on said matters, if stilltimely. LLjur

The threshold question is whether or not the Commission on Human Rights has the power under the Constitutionto do so; whether or not, like a court of justice,19or even a quasi-judicial agency,20it has jurisdiction oradjudicatory powers over, or the power to try and decide, or hear and determine, certain specific type of cases,like alleged human rights violations involving civil or political rights.

The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such power; and that it was not meant by thefundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over thefunctions 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 politicalrights. But fact-finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to thejudicial functionof a court of justice, oreven a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts ofa controversy is not a judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of r eceivingevidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying thelaw to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively,
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnotes


3/22


finally and definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. 21This function, torepeat, the Commission does not have. 22

The proposition is made clear by the constitutional provisions specifying the powers of the Commission on HumanRights.

The Commission was created by the 1987 Constitution as an independent office. 23Upon its constitution, it

succeeded and superseded the Presidential Committee on Human Rights existing at the time of the effectivity ofthe Constitution. 24Its powers and functions are the following:25

"(1)Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rightsviolations involving civil and political rights;

(2)Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt forviolations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;

(3)Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of allpersons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, andprovide for preventive measures and legal aid services to theunderprivileged whose human rights have been violated or needprotection;

(4)Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;

(5)Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhancerespect for the primacy of human rights;

(6)Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and toprovide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or theirfamilies;

(7)Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treatyobligations on human rights;

(8)Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose

possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient todetermine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under itsauthority;

(9)Bequest the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in theperformance of its functions; LLjur

(10)Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and

(11)Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law."

As should at once be observed, only the first of the enumerated powers and functions bears any resemblance toadjudication or adjudgment. The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission the power toinvestigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.It can exercise that power on its

own initiative or on complaint of any person. It may exercise that power pursuant to such rules of procedure as itmay adopt and, in cases of violations of said rules, cite for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. In thecourse of any investigation conducted by it or under its authority, it may grant immunity from prosecution to anyperson whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient todetermine the truth. It may also request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in theperformance of its functions, in the conduct of its investigation or in extending such remedy as may be required byits findings. 26

But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasijudicialbodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical sense, theseterms have well understood and quite distinct meanings.

"Investigate," commonly understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on,study. The dictionary definition of "investigate" is "to observe or study closely: inquire into systematically: "tosearch or inquire into: . . . to subject to an official probe . . .: to conduct an official inquiry."27The purpose of

investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated isthe notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of thelaw to the facts established by the inquiry.

The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry orobservation. To trace or track; to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out bycareful inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;"28"to inquire; to make an investigation,""investigation" being in turn described as "(a)n administrative function, the exercise of which ordinarily does notrequire a hearing. 2 Am J2d Adm L Sec. 257; . . . an inquiry, judicial or otherwise, for the discovery and collectionof facts concerning a certain matter or matters."29

"Adjudicate," commonly or popularly understood, means to adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resolve,rule on, settle. The dictionary defines the term as "to settle finally (the rights and duties of the parties to a courtcase) on the merits of issues raised: . . . to pass judgment on: settle judicially: . . . act as judge."30And "adjudge"means "to decide or rule upon as a judge or with judicial or quasi-judicial powers: . . . to award or grant judicially in

a case of controversy . . ."31

In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority. To determine finally.Synonymous with adjudgein its strictest sense;" and "adjudge" means: "To pass on judicially, to decide, settle ordecree, or to sentence or condemn. . . . Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgment."32
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnotes


4/22


Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power "to investigate," cannot and shouldnot "try and resolve on the merits" (adjudicate) the matters involved in Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775,as it has announced it means to do; and it cannot do so even if there be a claim that in the administrativedisciplinary proceedings against the teachers in question, initiated and conducted by the DECS, their humanrights, or civil or political rights had been transgressed. More particularly, the Commission has no power to"resolve on the merits" the question of (a) whether or not the mass concerted actions engaged in by the teachersconstitute a strike and are prohibited or otherwise restricted by law; (b) whether or not the act of carrying on andtaking part in those actions, and the failure of the teachers to discontinue those actions and return to their classes

despite the order to this effect by the Secretary of Education, constitute infractions of relevant rules andregulations warranting administrative disciplinary sanctions, or are justified by the grievances complained of bythem; and (c) what where the particular acts done by each individual teacher and what sanctions, if any, mayproperly be imposed for said acts or omissions. LLjur

These are matters undoubtedly and clearly within the original jurisdiction of the Secretary of Education, beingwithin the scope of the disciplinary powers granted to him under the Civil Service Law, and also, within theappellate jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

Indeed, the Secretary of Education has, as above narrated, already taken cognizance of the issues and resolvedthem, 33and it appears that appeals have been seasonably taken by the aggrieved parties to the Civil ServiceCommission; and even this Court itself has had occasion to pass upon said issues. 34

Now, it is quite obvious that whether or not the conclusions reached by the Secretary of Education in disciplinarycases are correct and are adequately based on substantial evidence; whether or not the proceedings themselvesare void or defective in not having accorded the respondents due process; and whether or not the Secretary ofEducation had in truth committed "human rights violations involving civil and political rights," are matters whichmay be passed upon and determined through a motion for reconsideration addressed to the Secretary ofEducation himself, and in the event of an adverse verdict, may be renewed by the Civil Service Commission andeventually by the Supreme Court.

The Commission on Human Rights simply has no place in this scheme of things. It has no business intruding intothe jurisdiction and functions of the Education Secretary or the Civil Service Commission. It has no business goingover the same ground traversed by the latter and making its own judgment on the questions involved. This wouldaccord success to what may well have been the complaining teachers' strategy to abort, frustrate or negate the

judgment of the Education Secretary in the administrative cases against them which they anticipated would beadverse to them.

This cannot be done. It will not be permitted to be done.

In any event, the investigation by the Commission on Human Rights would serve no useful purpose. If itsinvestigation should result in conclusions contrary to those reached by Secretary Cario, it would have no poweranyway to reverse the Secretary's conclusions. Reversal thereof can only by done by the Civil ServiceCommission and lastly by this Court. The only thing the Commission can do, if it concludes that Secretary Cariowas in error, is to refer the matter to the appropriate Government agency or tribunal for assistance; that would be

the Civil Service Commission. 35It cannot arrogate unto itself the appellate jurisdiction of the Civil ServiceCommission.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the Order of December 29, 1990 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and therespondent Commission on Human Rights and the Chairman and Members thereof are prohibited "to hear andresolve the case (i.e., Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775) on the merits."

SO ORDERED

Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr. andRomero, JJ.,concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., concurs in the result. The teachers are not to be blamed for exhausting all means to overcomethe Secretary's arbitrary act of not reinstating them.

Separate Opinions

PARAS, J ., concurring:

I concur with the brilliant and enlightening decision of Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa.

I wish to add however that the Commission on Human Rights should concern itself in this case and in many othersimilar cases:

(1)not only with the human rights of striking teachers but also the human rights ofstudents and their parents;

(2)not only with the human rights of the accused but also the human rights of thevictims and the latter's families;

(3)not only with the human rights of those who rise against the government but alsothose who defend the same;

(4)not only the human rights of striking laborers but also those who as a consequenceof strikes may be laid off because of financial repercussions.

The defense of human rights is not a monopoly of a government agency (such as the Commission onHuman Rights) nor the monopoly of a group of lawyers defending so-called "human rights" but theresponsibility of ALL AGENCIES (governmental or private) and of ALL LAWYERS, JUDGES, andJUSTICES. LexLib
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18720?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28Commission+on+Human+Rights%29#footnotes


5/22


Finally, the Commission should realize that while there are "human rights",there are also corresponding "humanobligations."

PADILLA, J ., dissenting:

I dissent. I vote to dismiss the petition for the same reasons stated in my earlier separate opinion filed in this case.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 101476. April 14, 1992.]

EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY,petitioner,vs.THE COMMISSION ONHUMAN RIGHTS, TERESITA VALLES, LORETO ALEDIA and PEDRO ORDOEZ ,respondents.

The Government Corporate Counselfor petitioner.

Marvic M.V.F. Leonenfor respondents Valles, Aledia and Ordoez.

SYLLABUS

1.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS; LIMITATION ON THE POWER THEREOF TOPROVIDE PREVENTIVE MEASURES AND LEGAL AID SERVICES TO THE UNDERPRIVILEGED WHOSEHUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.The constitutional provision directing the CHR to "provide forpreventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated orneed protection" may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writof injunction for, if that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so. "Jurisdiction is conferredonly by the Constitution or by law (Oroso, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76828-32, 28 January 1991;Bacalso vs. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-22488, 26 October 1967, 21 SCRA 519). It is never derived by implication.(Garcia, et al. vs. De Jesus, et al., G.R. No. 88158; Tobon Uy vs. Commission on Election, et al., G.R. Nos.97108-09, March 4, 1992.)

2.ID.; ID.; NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; REASON THEREFOR.Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and

judicial remedies (including a preliminary writ of injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts onbehalf of the victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction toissue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge of any court in which the actionis pending [within his district]. or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. It may also begranted by the judge of the Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] in any action pending in an inferior

court within his district." (Sec. 2, Rule 58, Rules of Court). A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. Itis available only in a pending principal action, for the preservation or protection of the rights and interests of aparty thereto, and for no other purpose.

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

1.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS; HAS THE AUTHORITY IN APPROPRIATE

CASES TO PROVIDE FOR PREVENTIVE MEASURES AND LEGAL AID SERVICES TO THEUNDERPRIVILEGED WHOSE HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED OR NEED PROTECTION. JusticePadilla dissents for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in "Hon. Isidro Cario, et al. vs. Commission onHuman Rights, et al.," G.R. No. 96681, 2 December 1991. In addition, it is his considered view that the CHR hasthe unquestioned authority in appropriate cases to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to theunder privileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection." (Section 18(c), Article XIII, 1987Constitution). If the CHR can not, by itself, issue any cease and desist order in order to maintain the status quopending its investigation of cases involving alleged human rights violations, then it is, in effect, an ineffectiveinstrument for the protection of human rights. He submits that the CHR, consistent with the intent of the framers ofthe 1987 Constitution, may issue cease and desist orders particularly in situations involving a threatened violationof human rights, which it intends to investigate, and such cease and desist orders may be judicially challengedlike the orders of the other constitutional commissions,which are not courts of law under Rule 65 of theRules of Court, on grounds of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

D E C I S I O N

GRIO-AQUINO, J p:

On May 30, 1980, P.D. 1980 was issued reserving and designating certain parcels of land in Rosario and GeneralTrias, Cavite, as the "Cavite Export Processing Zone" (CEPZ). For purposes of development, the area wasdivided into Phases I to IV. A parcel in Phase IV was bought by the Filoil Refinery Corporation. The same parcelwas later sold by Filoil to the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA).

Before EPZA could take possession of the area, several individuals had entered the premises and plantedagricultural products therein without permission from EPZA or its predecessor, Filoil. To convince the intruders todepart peacefully, EPZA, in 1981, paid a P10,000-financial-assistance to those who accepted the same and

signed quitclaims. Among them were Teresita Valles and Alfredo Aledia, father of respondent Loreto Aledia.

Ten years later, on May 10, 1991, respondent Teresita Valles, Loreto Aledia and Pedro Ordoez filed in therespondent Commission on Human Rights (CHR) a joint complaint (Pinagsamang Salaysay) praying for "justiceand other reliefs and remedies" ("Katarungan at iba pang tulong"). The CHR conducted an investigation of thecomplaint.


6/22


According to the CHR, the private respondents, who are farmers, filed in the Commission on May 10, 1991, averified complaint for violation of their human rights. They alleged that on March 20, 1991, at 10:00 o'clock in themorning, Engineer Neron Damondamon, EPZA Project Engineer, accompanied by his subordinates and membersof the 215th PNP Company, brought a bulldozer and a crane to level the area occupied by the privaterespondents who tried to stop them by showing a copy of a letter from the Office of the President of thePhilippines ordering postponement of the bulldozing. However, the letter was crumpled and thrown to the groundby a member of Damondamon's group who proclaimed that: "The President in Cavite is Governor Remulla!" prLL

On April 3, 1991, mediamen who had been invited by the private respondents to cover the happenings in the areawere beaten up and their cameras were snatched from them by members of the Philippine National Police andsome government officials and their civilian followers.

On May 17, 1991, the CHR issued an Order of injunction commanding EPZA, the 125th PNP Company andGovernor Remulla and their subordinates to desist from committing further acts of demolition, terrorism, andharassment until further orders from the Commission and to appear before the Commission on May 27, 1991 at9:00 a.m. for a dialogue (Annex A).

On May 25, 1991, two weeks later, the same group accompanied by men of Governor Remulla, again bulldozedthe area. They allegedly handcuffed private respondent Teresita Valles, pointed their firearms at the otherrespondents, and fired a shot in the air.

On May 28, 1991, CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista issued another injunction Order reiterating her order

of May 17, 1991 and expanded it to include the Secretary of Public Works and Highways, the contractors, andtheir subordinates. The order reads as follows: prLL

"Considering the sworn statements of the farmers whose farmlands are beingbulldozed and the wanton destruction of their irrigation canals which preventcultivation of the farmlands as well as the claim of ownership of the lands by somefarmers-complainants, and their possession and cultivation thereof spanning decades,including the failure of the officials concerned to comply with the Constitutionalprovision on the eviction of rural 'squatters', the Commission reiterates its Order ofMay 17, 1991, and further ordersthe Secretary of Public Works and Highways, theirContractors and representatives to refrain and desist from bulldozing the farmlands ofthe complainants-farmerswho have come to the Commission for relief, during thependency of this investigation and to refrain from further destruction of the irrigationcanals in the area until further orders of the Commission.

"This dialogue is reset to June 10, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. and the Secretary of theDepartment of Public Works and Highways or his representative is requested toappear." (p. 20, Rollo; emphasis ours.)

On July 1, 1991, EPZA filed in the CHR a motion to lift the Order of Injunction for lack of authority to issueinjunctive writs and temporary restraining orders.

On August 16, 1991, the Commission denied the motion.

On September 11, 1991, the petitioner, through the Government Corporate Counsel, filed in this Court a Specialcivil action of certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a restraining order and/or preliminaryinjunction, alleging that the CHR acted in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing therestraining order and injunctive writ; that the private respondents have no clear, positive right to be protected byan injunction; that the CHR abused its discretion in entertaining the private respondent's complaint because the

issues raised therein had been decided by this Court, hence, it is barred by prior judgment.

On September 19, 1991, this Court issued a temporary restraining order, ordering the CHR to cease and desistfrom enforcing and/or implementing the questioned injunction orders.

In its comment on the petition, the CHR asked for the immediate lifting of this Court's restraining order, and for anorder restraining petitioner EPZA from doing further acts of destruction and harassment. The CHR contends thatits principal function under Section 18, Art. 13 of the 1987 Constitution, "is not limited to mere investigation"because it is mandated, among others, to:

"a.Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rightsviolations involving civil and political rights;

"b. Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for

violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;

"c.Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of allpersons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, andprovide for

preventive measures and legal aid services to the under privilegedwhose humanrights have been violated or need protection;

"d.Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treatyobligations on human rights. (Emphasis ours.)" (p. 45, Rollo.)

On November 14, 1991, the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion praying that he be excused fromfiling a Comment for the CHR on the ground that the Comment filed by the latter "fully traversed and squarely met

all the issues raised and discussed in the main Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition" (p. 83, Rollo.) LexLib

Does the CHR have jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction or restraining order against supposed violators ofhuman rights, to compel them to cease and desist from continuing the acts complained of?

In "Hon. Isidro Cario, et al. vs. Commission on Human Rights, et al.," G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991, weheld that the CHR is not a court of justice nor even a quasi-judicial body.


7/22


"The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative poweris that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regardsclaimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact-finding isnot adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial functionof a court of justice, oreven a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence andascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function, properlyspeaking. To be considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and makingfactual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying

the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided ordetermined authoritatively, finally and definitely, subject to such appeals or modes ofreview as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does nothave.

"xxx xxx xxx.

"Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power 'toinvestigate,' cannot and should not 'try and resolve on the merits' (adjudicate) thematters involved in Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775, as it has announced itmeans to do; and it cannot do so even if there be a claim that in the administrativedisciplinary proceedings against the teachers in question, initiated and conducted bythe DECS, their human rights, or civil or political rights had been transgressed. Moreparticularly, the Commission has no power to 'resolve on the merits' the question of(a) whether or not the mass concerted actions engaged in by the teachers constitute a

strike and are prohibited or otherwise restricted by law; (b) whether or not the act ofcarrying on and taking part in those actions, and the failure of the teachers todiscontinuethose actions and return to their classes despite the order to this effect bythe Secretary of Education, constitute infractions of relevant rules and regulationswarranting administrative disciplinary sanctions, or are justified by the grievancescomplained of by them; and (c) what were the particular acts done by each individualteacher and what sanctions, if any, may properly be imposed for said acts oromissions." (pp. 5 & 8.)

The constitutional provision directing the CHR to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to theunderprivileged 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, if that were the intention, theConstitution would have expressly said so. "Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law (Oroso, Jr.vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76828-32, 28 January 1991; Bacalso vs. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-22488, 26October 1967, 21 SCRA 519). It is never derived by implication. (Garcia, et al. vs. De Jesus, et al., G.R. No.88158; Tobon Uy vs. Commission on Election, et al., G.R. Nos. 97108-09. March 4, 1992.).

Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial andjudicial remedies (including a preliminary writ of injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts onbehalf of the victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction toissue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge of any court in which the actionis pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. It may also begranted by the judge of a Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial court] in any action pending in an inferiorcourt within his district." (Sec. 2, Rule 58, Rules of Court). A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. It

is available only in a pending principal action, for the preservation or protection of the rights and interests of aparty thereto, and for no other purpose. prcd

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The orders of injunction dated May 17 and28, 1991 issued by the respondent Commission on Human Rights, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE andthe temporary restraining order which this Court issued on September 19, 1991, is hereby made PERMANENT.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C .J ., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Bidin, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., RomeroandNocon, JJ ., concur.

Feliciano andBellosillo, JJ ., are on leave.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J ., dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in "Hon. Isidro Cario, et al. vs. Commission on Human

Rights, et al.," G.R. No. 96681, 2 December 1991. In addition, it is my considered view that the CHR has theunquestioned authority in appropriate cases to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to theunder privileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection." (Section 18(c), Article XIII, 1987Constitution).

If the CHR can not, by itself, issue any cease and desist order in order to maintain the status quopending itsinvestigation of cases involving alleged human rights violations, then it is, in effect, an ineffective instrument forthe protection of human rights. I submit that the CHR, consistent with the intent of the framers of the 1987Constitution, may issue cease and desist orders particularly in situations involving a threatened violation of humanrights, which it intends to investigate, and such cease and desist orders may be judicially challenged like theorders of the other constitutional commissions,which are not courts of law under Rule 65 of the Rules ofCourt, on grounds of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to remand the case to the CHR for further proceedings(investigation).

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 83896. February 22, 1991.]


8/22


CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,petitioner,vs.THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,respondent.

[G.R. No. 83815. February 22, 1991.]

ANTI-GRAFT LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. and CRISPIN T. REYES,petitioners,vs.PHILIP ELLA C. JUICO, as Secretary of Agrarian Reform;CARLOS DOMINGUEZ, as Secretary of Agriculture; LOURDES QUISUMBING, asSecretary of Education, Culture and Sports; FULGENCIO FACTORAN, JR., asSecretary of Environment and Natural Resources; VICENTE V. JAYME, asSecretary of Finance; SEDFREY ORDOEZ, as Secretary of Justice; FRANKLINN. DRILON, as Secretary of Labor and Employment; LUIS SANTOS, as Secretaryof Local Government; FIDEL V. RAMOS, as Secretary of National Defense;TEODORO F. BENIGNO, as Press Secretary; JUANITO FERRER, as Secretary ofPublic Works and Highways; ANTONIO ARRIZABAL, as Secretary of Scienceand Technology; JOSE CONCEPCION, as Secretary of Trade and Industry;JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ, as Secretary of Tourism; ALFREDO R.A.BENGZON, as Secretary of Health; REINERIO D. REYES, as Secretary ofTransportation and Communication; GUILLERMO CARAGUE, as Commissionerof the Budget; and SOLITA MONSOD, as Head of the National EconomicDevelopment Authority,respondents.

Ignacio P.Lacsina, Luis R. Mauricio, Antonio R. Quintosand Juan T .Davidfor petitioners in 83896.

Antonio P.Coronelfor petitioners in 83815.

D E C I S I O N

FERNAN, C.J p:

These two (2) petitions were consolidated per resolution dated August 9, 1988 1 and are being resolved jointly asboth seek a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C.

Aquino on July 25, 1987. The pertinent provisions of the assailed Executive Order are:

"SECTION 1.Even if allowed by law or by the ordinary functions of his position, amember of the Cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointiveofficials of the Executive Department may, in addition to his primary position, hold notmore than two positions in the government and government corporations and receive

the corresponding compensation therefor; Provided, that this limitation shall not applyto ad hoc bodies or committees, or to boards, councils or bodies of which thePresident is the Chairman.

"SECTION 2.If a member of the cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary orother appointive official of the Executive Department holds more positions than whatis allowed in Section 1 hereof, they (sic) must relinquish the excess position in favor of

the subordinate official who is next in rank, but in no case shall any official hold morethan two positions other than his primary position.

"SECTION 3.In order to fully protect the interest of the government in government-owned or controlled corporations, at least one-third (1/3) of the members of theboards of such corporation should either be a secretary, or undersecretary, orassistant secretary."

Petitioners maintain that this Executive Order which, in effect, allows members of the Cabinet, theirundersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to theirprimary positions, albeit subject to the limitation therein imposed, runs counter to Section 13, Article VII of the1987 Constitution, 2which provides as follows:

"Sec. 13.The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and theirdeputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold

any other office or employment during their tenure . They shall not, during said tenure,directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in any business, or befinancially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilegegranted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. Theyshall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office."

It is alleged that the above-quoted Section 13, Article VII prohibits public respondents, as members of theCabinet, along with the other public officials enumerated in the list attached to the petitions as Annex "C" in G.R.No. 838153and as Annex "B" in G.R. No. 83896 4 from holding any other office or employment during theirtenure. In addition to seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284, petitioner Anti-Graft League of the Philippines further seeks in G.R. No. 83815 the issuance of the extraordinary writs ofprohibition and mandamus, as well as a temporary restraining order directing public respondents therein to ceaseand desist from holding, in addition to their primary positions, dual or multiple positions other than thoseauthorized by the 1987 Constitution and from receiving any salaries, allowances, per diems and other forms of

privileges and the like appurtenant to their questioned positions, and compelling public respondents to return,reimburse or refund any and all amounts or benefits that they may have received from such positions. prcd

Specifically, petitioner Anti-Graft League of the Philippines charges that notwithstanding the aforequoted"absolute and self-executing" provision of the 1987 Constitution, then Secretary of Justice Sedfrey Ordoez,construing Section 13, Article VII in relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B, rendered on July 23, 1987 OpinionNo. 73, series of 1987, 5 declaring that Cabinet members, their deputies (undersecretaries) and assistantsecretaries may hold other public office, including membership in the boards of government corporations: (a)when directly provided for in the Constitution as in the case of the Secretary of Justice who is made an ex-officio
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnotes


9/22


member of the Judicial and Bar Council under Section 8, paragraph 1, Article VIII; or (b) if allowed by law; or (c) ifallowed by the primary functions of their respective positions; and that on the basis of this Opinion, the Presidentof the Philippines, on July 25, 1987, or two (2) days before Congress convened on July 27, 1987, promulgatedExecutive Order No. 284.6

Petitioner Anti-Graft League of the Philippines objects to both DOJ Opinion No. 73 and Executive Order No. 284as they allegedly "lumped together" Section 13, Article VII and the general provision in another article, Section 7,

par. (2), Article IX-B. This "strained linkage" between the two provisions, each addressed to a distinct andseparate group of public officersone, the President and her official family, and the other, public servants ingeneralallegedly "abolished the clearly separate, higher, exclusive, and mandatory constitutional rankassigned to the prohibition against multiple jobs for the President, the Vice-President, the members of theCabinet, and their deputies and subalterns, who are the leaders of government expected to lead by example."7

Article IX-B, Section 7, par. (2)8provides:

"Sec. 7.. . .

"Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, noappointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the government or anysubdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned orcontrolled corporations or their subsidiaries."

The Solicitor General counters that Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 73, series of 1987, as further

elucidated and clarified by DOJ Opinion No. 129, series of 19879and DOJ Opinion No. 155, series of 1988, 10being the first official construction and interpretation by the Secretary of Justice of Section 13, Article VII and par.(2) of Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution, involving the same subject of appointments or designations of anappointive executive official to positions other than his primary position, is "reasonably valid and constitutionallyfirm," and that Executive Order No. 284, promulgated pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 73, series of 1987 isconsequently constitutional. It is worth noting that DOJ Opinion No. 129, series of 1987 and DOJ Opinion No. 155,series of 1988 construed the limitation imposed by E.O. No. 284 as not applying to ex-officiopositions or topositions which, although not so designated as ex-officioare allowed by the primary functions of the public official,but only to the holding of multiple positions which are not related to or necessarily included in the position of thepublic official concerned (disparate positions).

In sum, the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 is being challenged by petitioners on the principalsubmission that it adds exceptions to Section 13, Article VII other than those provided in the Constitution.

According to petitioners, by virtue of the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution," the onlyexceptions against holding any other office or employment in Government are those provided in the Constitution,namely: (1) The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2), ArticleVII thereof; and (2) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officiomember of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue ofSection 8 (1), Article VIII.

Petitioners further argue that the exception to the prohibition in Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B on the Civil ServiceCommission applies to officers and employees of the Civil Service in general and that said exceptions do notapply and cannot be extended to Section 13, Article VII which applies specifically to the President, Vice-President,Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistants.

There is no dispute that the prohibition against the President, Vice-President, the members of the Cabinet andtheir deputies or assistants from holding dual or multiple positions in the Government admits of certain exceptions.The disagreement between petitioners and public respondents lies on the constitutional basis of the exception.Petitioners insist that because of the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" used in Section 13 of

Article VII, the exception must be expressly provided in the Constitution, as in the case of the Vice-Presidentbeing allowed to become a Member of the Cabinet under the second paragraph of Section 3, Article VII or theSecretary of Justice being designated an ex-officiomember of the Judicial and Bar Council under Article VIII, Sec.8 (1). Public respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the phrase "unless otherwise provided in the

Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII makes reference to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B insofar as the appointiveofficials mentioned therein are concerned. prLL

The threshold question therefore is: does the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution insofaras Cabinet members, their deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the broad exceptions made forappointive officials in general under Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B which, for easy reference is quoted anew,thus: "Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall holdany other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, includinggovernment-owned or controlled corporation or their subsidiaries."

We rule in the negative.

A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention underlying the provision under consideration.Thus, it has been held that the Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to beaccomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision willbe examined in the light of the history of the times, and the condition and circumstances under which theConstitution was framed. The object is to ascertain the reason which induced the framers of the Constitution toenact the particular provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the wholeas to make the words consonant to that reason and calculated to effect that purpose. 11

The practice of designating members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants as members of the governingbodies or boards of various government agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned andcontrolled corporations, became prevalent during the time legislative powers in this country were exercised byformer President Ferdinand E. Marcos pursuant to his martial law authority. There was a proliferation of newly-created agencies, instrumentalities and government-owned and controlled corporations created by presidentialdecrees and other modes of presidential issuances where Cabinet members, their deputies or assistants weredesignated to head or sit as members of the board with the corresponding salaries, emoluments, per diems,allowances and other perquisites of office. Most of these instrumentalities have remained up to the present time.Cdpr

This practice of holding multiple offices or positions in the government soon led to abuses by unscrupulous publicofficials who took advantage of this scheme for purposes of self-enrichment. In fact, the holding of multiple officesin government was strongly denounced on the floor of the Batasang Pambansa.12This condemnation came inreaction to the published report of the Commission on Audit, entitled "1983 Summary Annual Audit Report on:Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations, Self-Governing Boards and Commissions" which carried as its
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnotes


10/22


Figure No. 4 a "Roaster of Membership in Governing Boards of Government-Owned and Controlled Corporationsas of December 31, 1983."

Particularly odious and revolting to the people's sense of propriety and morality in government service were thedata contained therein that Roberto V. Ongpin was a member of the governing boards of twenty-nine (29)governmental agencies, instrumentalities and corporations; Imelda R. Marcos of twenty-three (23); Cesar E.A.Virata of twenty-two (22); Arturo R. Tanco, Jr. of fifteen (15); Jesus S. Hipolito and Geronimo Z. Velasco, of

fourteen each (14); Cesar C. Zalamea of thirteen (13); Ruben B. Ancheta and Jose A. Roo of twelve (12) each;Manuel P. Alba, Gilberto O. Teodoro, and Edgardo Tordesillas of eleven (11) each; and Lilia Bautista andTeodoro Q. Pea of ten (10) each. 13

The blatant betrayal of public trust evolved into one of the serious causes of discontent with the Marcos regime. Itwas therefore quite inevitable and in consonance with the overwhelming sentiment of the people that the 1986Constitutional Commission, convened as it was after the people successfully unseated former President Marcos,should draft into its proposed Constitution the provisions under consideration which are envisioned to remedy, ifnot correct, the evils that flow from the holding of multiple governmental offices and employment. In fact, askeenly observed by Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz during the deliberations in these cases, one of the strongestselling points of the 1987 Constitution during the campaign for its ratification was the assurance given by itsproponents that the scandalous practice of Cabinet members holding multiple positions in the government andcollecting unconscionably excessive compensation therefrom would be discontinued. LibLex

But what is indeed significant is the fact that although Section 7, Article IX-B already contains a blanket prohibition

against the holding of multiple offices or employment in the government subsuming both elective and appointivepublic officials, the Constitutional Commission should see it fit to formulate another provision, Sec. 13, Article VII,specifically prohibiting the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants fromholding any other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution itself.

Evidently, from this move as well as in the different phraseologies of the constitutional provisions in question, theintent of the framers of the Constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition on the President and his official familyin so far as holding other offices or employment in the government or elsewhere is concerned.

Moreover, such intent is underscored by a comparison of Section 13, Article VII with other provisions of theConstitution on the disqualifications of certain public officials or employees from holding other offices oremployment. Under Section 13, Article VII, "(N)o Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may holdany other office or employment in the Government. . .". Under Section 5(4), Article XVI, "(N)o member of thearmed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed in any capacity to a civilian position in theGovernment, including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries." Even Section 7(2), Article IX-B, relied upon by respondents provides "(U)nless otherwise allowed by law or by the primaryfunctions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government."

It is quite notable that in all these provisions on disqualifications to hold other office or employment, the prohibitionpertains to an office or employment in the governmentand government-owned or controlled corporations or theirsubsidiaries. In striking contrast is the wording of Section 13, Article VII which states that "(T)he President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided inthis Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure." In the latter provision, thedisqualification is absolute, not being qualified by the phrase "in the Government." The prohibition imposed on the

President and his official family is therefore all-embracing and covers both public and private office oremployment. cdll

Going further into Section 13, Article VII, the second sentence provides: "They shall not, during said tenure,directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in anycontract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency orinstrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries." These

sweeping, all-embracing prohibitions imposed on the President and his official family, which prohibitions are notsimilarly imposed on other public officials or employees such as the Members of Congress, members of the civilservice in general and members of the armed forces, are proof of the intent of the 1987 Constitution to treat thePresident and his official family as a class by itself and to impose upon said class stricter prohibitions. LexLib

Such intent of the 1986 Constitutional Commission to be stricter with the President and his official family was alsosuccinctly articulated by Commissioner Vicente Foz after Commissioner Regalado Maambong noted during thefloor deliberations and debate that there was no symmetry between the Civil Service prohibitions, originally foundin the General Provisions and the anticipated report on the Executive Department. Commissioner Fozcommented, "We actually have to be stricter with the President and the members of the Cabinet because theyexercise more powers and, therefore, more checks and restraints on them are called for because there is morepossibility of abuse in their case."14

Thus, while all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment in thegovernment during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions,

members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by theConstitution itself. In other words, Section 7, Article IX-B is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to allelective and appointive public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exceptionapplicable only to the President, the Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.

This being the case, the qualifying phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" in Section 13, Article VIIcannot possibly refer to the broad exceptions provided under Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution. Toconstrue said qualifying phrase as respondents would have us do, would render nugatory and meaningless themanifest intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to impose a stricter prohibition on the President,Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with respect to holding other offices oremployment in the government during their tenure. Respondents' interpretation that Section 13 of Article VIIadmits of the exceptions found in Section 7, par. (2) of Article IX-B would obliterate the distinction so carefully setby the framers of the Constitution as to when the high-ranking officials of the Executive Branch from the Presidentto Assistant Secretary, on the one hand, and the generality of civil servants from the rank immediately below

Assistant Secretary downwards, on the other, may hold any other office or position in the government during theirtenure. cdll

Moreover, respondents' reading of the provisions in question would render certain parts of the Constitutioninoperative. This observation applies particularly to the Vice-President who, under Section 13 of Article VII isallowed to hold other office or employment when so authorized by the Constitution, but who as an elective publicofficial under Sec. 7, par. (1) of Article IX-B is absolutely ineligible "for appointment or designation in any capacityto any public office or position during his tenure." Surely, to say that the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this
http://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnoteshttp://cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/18652?search=date%3A%5B1991+1992%5D+AND+title%3A+%28civil+liberties+union%29+AND+title%3A+%28executive+secretary%29#footnotes


11/22


Constitution" found in Section 13, Article VII has reference to Section 7, par. (1) of Article IX-B would rendermeaningless the specific provisions of the Constitution authorizing the Vice-President to become a member of theCabinet, 15 and to act as President without relinquishing the Vice-Presidency where the President shall not havebeen chosen or fails to qualify. 16 Such absurd consequence can be avoided only by interpreting the twoprovisions under consideration as one, i.e., Section 7, par. (1) of Article IX-B providing the general rule and theother, i.e., Section 13, Article VII as constituting the exception thereto. In the same manner must Section 7, par.(2) of Article IX-B be construed vis-a-vis Section 13, Article VII. LexLib

It is a well-established rule in constitutional construction that no one provision of the Constitution is to beseparated from all the others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing upon a particular subjectare to be brought into view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument. 17Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the wholepurpose of the Constitution9

In other words, the court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean i n favor of a construction which willrender every word operative, rather than one which may make the words idle and nugatory.20

Since the evident purpose of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to impose a stricter prohibition on thePresident, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with respect to holding multipleoffices or employment in the government during their tenure, the exception to this prohibition must be read withequal severity. On its face, the language of Section 13, Article VII is prohibitory so that it must be understood asintended to be a positive and unequivocal negation of the privilege of holding multiple government offices or

employment. Verily, wherever the language used in the constitution is prohibitory, it is to be understood asintended to be a positive and unequivocal negation. 21 The phrase "unless otherwise provided in thisConstitution" must be given a literal interpretation to refer only to those particular instances cited in theConstitution itself, to wit: the Vice-President be

human rights full-text cases

Documents