Cariño vs Human Rights,
G.R. No. 96681
December 2, 1991
Facts: Some 800 public school teachers, among them members of MPSTA and ACT undertook "mass concerted actions" after
the protest rally without disrupting classes as a last call for the government to negotiate the granting of demands had elicited
no response from the Secretary of Education. The "mass actions" consisted in staying away from their classes, converging at the
Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering in peaceable assembly. Secretary of Education issued a return to work in 24 hours or face
dismissal and a memorandum directing the DECS officials and to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not
comply. After failure to heed the order, the CHR complainant (private respondents) 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: Does the Commission on have jurisdiction to adjudicate, try and hear the issue?
Ruling: The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such power. The most that may be conceded to the
Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate. 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.
The petition is granted and respondent Commission on Human Rights and the Chairman and Members thereof are prohibited
"to hear and resolve the case on the merits."
Isidro Cariño vs The Commission on Human Rights (204 SCRA 483)
FACTS: On September 17, 1990, some 800 public school teachers in Manila did not attend work and decided to stage rallies in
order to air grievances. As a result thereof, eight teachers were suspended from work for 90 days. The issue was then
investigated, and on December 17, 1990, DECS Secretary Isidro Cariño ordered the dismissal from the service of one teacher
and the suspension of three others. The case was appealed to the Commission on Human Rights. In the meantime, the Solicitor
General filed an action for certiorari regarding the case and prohibiting the CHR from continuing the case. Nevertheless, CHR
continued trial and issued a subpoena to Secretary Cariño. ISSUE: Whether or not CHR has the power to try and decide and
determine certain specific cases such as the alleged human rights violation involving civil and political rights. HELD: No. The CHR
is not competent to try such case. It has no judicial power. It can only investigate all forms of human rights violation involving
civil and political rights but it cannot and should not try and decide on the merits and matters involved therein. The CHR is
hence then barred from proceeding with the trial.
