Export Processing Zone Authority vs CHR

, Valles, Aledia and OrdonezG.R. No. 101476 April 14, 1992Facts:Valles, Aedia and Ordonez filed with CHR a
joint complaint against EPZA for allegedly violating theirhuman rights when EPZA Project Engineer
Damondamon along with 215 th PNP Company tried to level the areaoccupied by complainants.The same parcel
of land was reserved and allocated for purpose of development into Cavite ExportProcessing Zone which was
bought by Filoil Refinery Corporation and was later sold to EPZA.CHR issued an order of injunction for EPZA
and company to desist from committing further acts of demolition, terrorism and harassment until further
order. 2 weeks later the group started bulldozing the areaand CHR reiterated its order of injunction, including
the Secretary of Public Works and Highways to desist fromdoing work on the area. EPZA filed a motion to life
the order with CHR for lack of authority and said motion wasdismissed.EPZA filed the case at bar for
certiorari and prohibition alleging that CHR acted in excess of
its jurisdiction in issuing a restraining order and injunctive writ; that the private respondents have no clear an
dpositive right to be protected by an injunction; and that CHR abused its discretion in entertaining the
complaint.
EPZAs petition was granted and a TRO was issued ordering CHR to cease and desist from
enforcing/implementing the injunction orders. CHR commented that its function is not limited to
mereinvestigation (Art. 13, Sec. 18 of the 1987 Constitution).Issue: WON CHR has the jurisdiction to issue a
writ of injunction or restraining order against supposed violatorsof human rights, to compel them to cease and
desist from continuing the acts complained of.Ruling:In Carino vs CHR, it was held that CHR is not a court of
justice nor even a quasi-judicial body. The mostthat may be conceded to the Commission in the way of
adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receiveevidence 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 aquasi-judicial agency or official. The function of
receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of acontroversy is not a judicial function, properly
speaking. The constitutional provision directing the CHR to"provide for preventive measures and legal aid
services to the underprivileged whose human rights have beenviolated or need protection" may not be
construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue arestraining order or writ of injunction for, if that
were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly saidso. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and
never derived by implication.Evidently, the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the
Constitution refer toextrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a preliminary writ of injunction) which the
CHR may seek from theproper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of
justice, the CHR itself hasno jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be
issued "by the judge of anycourt in which the action is pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the
Court of Appeals, or of theSupreme 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 interest of a party
thereto, and for no other purpose.
EPZAs petition is granted.