NEBRES, ALEGRIA ROSER N.

LAW 2-E ADMINISTRATIVE and ELECTION LAWS – Atty. Leandro Millano

HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO v. THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

G.R. No. 96681 December 2, 1991

Narvasa, J.

Facts:

Some 800 public school teachers, undertook "mass concerted actions" consisting of staying away
from their classes to protest the alleged failure of public authorities to act upon their grievances.
Secretary of Education issued a return to work in 24 hours or face dismissal and a memorandum
directing DECS officials and to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not comply.
After failure to heed the order, the CHR complainant were administratively charged and
preventively suspended for 90 days. The private respondents moved "for suspension of the
administrative proceedings pending resolution by the Supreme Court of their application for
issuance of an injunctive writ/temporary restraining order. The motion was denied. The respondent
staged a walkout. The case was eventually decided ordering the dismissal of Esber and suspension
of others. The petition for certiorari in RTC was dismissed. Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme
Court was also denied.

Respondent complainant filed a complaint on the Commission of Human Rights alleging they were
denied due process and dismissed without due notice. The Commission issued an order to Cariño
to appear and enlighten the commission so that they can be accordingly guided in its investigation
and resolution of the matter.

Cariño filed a petition to Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition whether the Commission
has the jurisdiction to try and decide on the issue regarding denial of due process and whether or
not grievances justify their mass action or strike.

Issue:

Whether or not the grant of investigatory power to the CHR imply the grant of judicial or quasi-
judicial power?

Ruling:

No. The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such power; and that it was
not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or
duplicate much less take over the functions 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 political rights. But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be
likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The
Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission the power to investigate all forms
of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It does not however grant it the
power to resolve issues. The Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power "to
investigate," cannot and should not "try and resolve on the merits" of the matters involved. These
are matters within the original jurisdiction of the Secretary of Education and within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and lastly, the Supreme Court.