Simon vs. Comm. on Human Rights G.R. No.

100150 January 05, 1994

Facts :

Petitioner Mayor Simon asks to prohibit CHR from further hearing and investigating "demolition case" on vendors of
North EDSA.

Constitutional Issue :

Whether the CHR is authorized to hear and decide on the "demolition case" and to impose a fine for contempt.

Ruling :

Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution empowered the CHR to investigate all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights. The demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores and carenderia cannot fall within the
compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political rights".

Human rights are the basic rights which inhere in man by virtue of his humanity and are the same in all parts of the
world.

Human rights include civil rights (right to life, liberty and property; freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, academic
freedom; rights of the accused to due process of law), political rights (right to elect public officials, to be elected to
public office, and to form political associations and engage in politics), social rights (right to education, employment and
social services.

Human rights are entitlements that inhere in the individual person from the sheer fact of his humanity...Because they
are inherent, human rights are not granted by the State but can only be recognized and protected by it.

Human rights includes all the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights defined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

Human rights are rights that pertain to man simply because he is human. They are part of his natural birth, right, innate
and inalienable.

CIVIL RIGHTS - are those that belong to every citizen and are not connected with the organization or administration of
the government.

POLITICAL RIGHTS - are rights to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of the
government.

Soriao vs. Pineda (Not sure if Soriano or Soriao) CA-G.R. SP No. 31546 August 10, 1994
Facts:

Louie Soriao was a high school student in the sub province of Dinalungan, Aurora (S.Y. 1993 to 1994). Due to his
reputation of talking back to school authority during the past years, he was refused readmission to complete his fourth
and final year of high school through a verbal notice not to readmit. Soriao questioned the notice, averring that he was
deprived of a hearing on the matter and thus

the verbal notice was a denial of his right to due process. The administration ignored the student’s

plea to reconsider its

decision to deny him readmission claiming, “it was their prerogative.”

Seeking further remedies to no avail, Soriao filed a petition for certiorari to the CA.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner was denied his right to education.

Ruling:

YES. The Court of Appeals ordered Pineda, Head Teacher of the Juan C. Angara Memorial High School to allow Soriao to
enroll and study after he was meted out a disciplinary action without due process. The Court of Appeals invoked the
1987 Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article XIV, Sections 1 and 2 and Article II, Sections 13
and 17 of the 1987 Constitution provide: Article XIV, Section 1: The State shall protect and promote the right of all
citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.
Section 2: The State shall: (1)

Establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the
people and society; (2)

Establish and maintain, a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels. Without limiting the
natural right of parents to rear their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age; (3)

Establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan programs, subsidies, and other incentives which shall
be available to deserving students in both public and private schools, especially to the under-privileged; (4)

Encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning system, as well as self-study programs particularly those that
respond to community needs; and (5)

Provide adult citizens, the disabled, and out-of-school youth with training in civics, vocational efficiency, and other skills.
Article II, Section 13: The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect
their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and
nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. Section 17: The State shall give priority to
education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social
progress, and promote total human liberation and development.

Facts

This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44children, through their parents, claiming that they bringthe case
in the name of “their generation as well asthose generations yet unborn.” Aiming to stopdeforestation, it was filed
against the Secretary of theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the
timber licenseagreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease anddesist from accepting and approving more timber
licenseagreements. The children invoked their right to abalanced and healthful ecology and to protection by theState in
its capacity as

parens patriae

. The petitionersclaimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel theTLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary to
thehighest law of humankind-- the natural law-- andviolative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation andperpetuation."
The case was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on non-impairment of contracts,so it was brought to
theSupreme Courton certiorari.

Issue

Did the children have the legal standing to file the case?

Ruling

Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruledthat the children had the legal standing to file the casebased on
the concept of “intergenerationalresponsibility”. Their right to a healthy environmentcarried with it an obligation to
preserve that environmentfor the succeeding generations. In this, the Courtrecognized legal standing to sue on behalf of
futuregenerations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the
police power of the state in the interest of publicwelfare