Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Simo JR vs. CHR

    Uploaded by

    Alona Medalia Cadiz-Gabejan
    25 views12 pages
    The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) ordered petitioners to stop demolishing vendors' stalls along North EDSA and provided financial assistance to the vendors. However, petitioners questioned CHR's jurisdiction over the case, arguing that the vendors' rights to do business were a privilege rather than a civil or political right. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that CHR has no jurisdiction over the case and only has the power to investigate and make factual findings regarding human rights violations involving civil and political rights, not adjudicate disputes.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    2. SIMO JR VS. CHR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) ordered petitioners to stop demolishing vendors' stalls along North EDSA and provided financial assistance to the vendors. However, petitioners questioned CHR's jurisdiction over the case, arguing that the vendors' rights to do business were a privilege rather than a civil or political right. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that CHR has no jurisdiction over the case and only has the power to investigate and make factual findings regarding human rights violations involving civil and political rights, not adjudicate disputes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    25 views12 pages

    Simo JR vs. CHR

    Uploaded by

    Alona Medalia Cadiz-Gabejan
    The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) ordered petitioners to stop demolishing vendors' stalls along North EDSA and provided financial assistance to the vendors. However, petitioners questioned CHR's jurisdiction over the case, arguing that the vendors' rights to do business were a privilege rather than a civil or political right. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that CHR has no jurisdiction over the case and only has the power to investigate and make factual findings regarding human rights violations involving civil and political rights, not adjudicate disputes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 12

    Brigido SIMON, JR vs.

    COMMISSION ON HUMAN
    RIGHTS
    GR No. 100150 – January 5,
    1994
    ___________________________
    FACTS:
    In July 1990, a “Demolition Notice” was signed
    by Carlos Quimpo (one of the petitioners), in
    his capacity as an Executive Officer of the QC
    Integrated Hawkers Management Council
    under the Office of the City Mayor and was
    sent and received by the private respondents
    (being the officers and members of the North
    EDSA Vendors Association, Incorporated).
    In said Notice, the respondents were given a
    grace period of 3 days within which to vacate
    the premises
    of North EDSA.

    2
    Prior to their receipt of the demolition notice, the
    PRs were informed by petitioner
    Quimpo that their stalls should be removed to give
    way to the “People’s Park.”
    On July 12 1990, the group, led by their President
    Roque Ferno, filed a letter-complaint with the CHR
    against the petitioners, asking the late CHR
    Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter
    addressed to
    then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr., of QC to stop the
    demolition.

    3
    On July 23 1990, the CHR issued an order,
    directing the petitioners “to desist from
    demolishing the stalls and shanties at
    North Edsa pending resolution of the
    vendors/squatters’ complaint before the
    Commission” and ordered said petitioners to
    appear before the CHR.

    4
    On Aug. 1, 1990, the CHR, in its
    resolution, ordered the disbursement of
    financial assistance of not more than
    P200k in favor of PRs to purchase light
    housing materials and food under the
    Commission’s supervision and again
    directed the petitioners to “desist from
    further demolition, with the warning that
    violation of said order would lead to a
    citation for contempt and arrest.”

    5
    On Sept. 10, 1990, a motion to dismiss
    (MD) filed by the petitioners before the
    CHR questioned CHR’s jurisdiction. It was
    stated that the CHR’s authority should be
    understood as being confined only to the
    investigation of violations of civil and
    political rights, and that “the rights
    allegedly violated not such rights but
    privilege to engage in business.”

    6
    On Sept. 25 1990, in an order, the CHR cited
    the petitioners in contempt for carrying out the
    demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and
    Carinderia despite the “order to desist.” Also,
    petitioners’ MD was denied. It opined “it was
    not the intention of the Constitutional
    Commission to create only a paper tiger limited
    only to investigating civil and political rights, but
    it should be considered a quasi-judicial body
    with the power to provide appropriate legal
    measures for the protection of human rights of
    all persons within the PH.”

    7
    ISSUE

    Whether CHR has Jurisdiction over the


    case and whether they have an
    adjudicatory power.

    8
    RULING

    NO and NO
    CHR has no jurisdiction to take over
    the case.
    The law provides under Para1 Section 18 Article
    XIII of the 1987 Constitution that CHR is
    empowered to investigate on its own or on
    complaint by any party, all forms of human rights
    violations involving Civil and Political Rights.

    9
    The most that may be conceded to the
    CHR in the way of ADJUCATIVE POWER
    is that it may INVESTIGATE ,receive
    evidence and make FINDINGS OF FACT
    as regards claimed Human Right
    violations involving civil and political rights.

    10 National Crime Prevention Council


    FACT FINDING IS NOT
    ADJUDICATION ,and cannot be likened
    to the judicial function of a court of justice ,
    or even a quasi-judicial agency

    11 National Crime Prevention Council


    THANK YOU

    12

    You might also like