Date CARO vs. cHR ER NO awus!, Dec: 2/1981 Freie: : Some 800 grievances. The “ macs retort actions" iq zt Upon tacie converging 24 je Uwarang in eitying aor from fheie elrecer, pererbic aelemolics, ee. The Secretary of Bonifacio, gxthering Fducation served prem wit @n order to cetyen +o worle witht a hovers or Face difmisvals For Failure to heed the eeturn~ to-weke oroier, tight terchers 24 the Ramen Mgraysay High Senco! were Bdmintetratively charged. greventivey sueended For ao days UW, PP Gor ed temporarily replaced. Rn iavortigaron PYriuant to see committee wre consequently Formed 4o new the chorges. Whether of not CHR hae Juris diction ro 407 and heer tne Kseues involved: RUG! the count declares He commission on Humen Rights to have no such power; and Phat wins not me by the fundamental lew te be anotrer court of quavi- judicial agency In this country, ov duplicate less 42UE Over the funchons of tne Satter. wnore oF The nest 4et nay be conceded +0 ne Commission in te WY of adjudicative power is amet i mey invatigate recive evidence ard race findings of Foets a regards Gomed bmn righty viol erie Mi Ord pouiriest Fights. But fact finding iv not au juaicorion Lnwol vingDate: __ and cannot We Uikened to the pudictal function of 9 cowt of Justice, or even QuBi~ judicial agency OF OfFicia. The Anction of recciving therefrom tne fects of 8 controversy i net B judicial function, property wpe eng, Te, consider cucn, the Feuslty of fering evidence ead maving Factuy cenctwivas in 2 controveery may bo BwMPaie by tne guthority of epPlying the Iw ty rare face! conclusions fo the end +net controversy may be decided or determined uthor atively, fin Bly gecl definitively, vubjet 40 Such weeel or medes of review OF mry be provided by (2~- tmis function, 10 repert, the commission doer not bre.