G.R. No.

100150 January 5, 1994

BRIGIDO R. SIMON, JR., CARLOS QUIMPO, CARLITO ABELARDO, AND GENEROSO

OCAMPO, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ROQUE FERMO, AND OTHERS AS JOHN DOES, respondents.

Facts:
On 9 July 1990, a Demolition Notice signed by the Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated
Hawkers Management Council under the Office of the City Mayor sent to the officers of the North
EDSA Vendors Association, Incorporated. The officers of the association were given a grace period
of 3 days to vacate the premises. On 12 July 1990, the group filed a letter-complaint to CHR asking
for a letter to be addressed to the then QC Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr. to stop the demolition of the
stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia along North EDSA. The CHR then issued an order to desist
from demolishing the stalls and shanties pending resolution of the vendor’s complaint before the
CHR. However, based on CHR’s own ocular inspection, they discovered that the demolition was
carried out; and in its resolution ordered the disbursement of not more than PhP 200,000 financial
assistance to the officers and members of the association. A motion to dismiss was willed by the
staff of the Office of the Mayor stating that CHR’s authority should be confined only to the
investigation of violation of civil and political rights.

Issue:
Whether or not the CHR has jurisdiction to investigate the alleged violations of the “business rights”
of the vendors/members of the association.

Held:
No. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission envisioned a CHR that would focus its
attention to the more severe cases of human rights violations such as the following areas: "(1)
protection of rights of political detainees, (2) treatment of prisoners and the prevention of tortures,
(3) fair and public trials, (4) cases of disappearances, (5) salvagings and hamletting, and (6) other
crimes committed against the religious."
The land where the stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia were erected by the members of the
association is planned to be developed into a People’s Park. Also, the land adjoins a busy national
highway where the consequent danger to life and limb should be considered. Indeed, the right
claimed to have been violated is one that cannot, in the first place, even be invoked, if it is, in fact,
extant. Hence, it cannot be concluded that the order of demolition of said stalls can fall within the
compartment of “human rights violations involving civil and political rights” intended by the
Constitution.