Date simon vs: COMMISSLOM ON HUMAN RIGHTS GR No- 10180, Tenvrry 5,994 Frenst The case ail wterted when 2% July 19a, signed by Certos Buimpo in bir Capacity Br an Executive of the auczen City Integrated Hawkers Menagement council under #ME OF fee of te GitY Moyer, wor sent to, and received by ane peivade respondents On September igac, @ supplement! modion to diumist wee filed! by me pesonces, vipting thd the Commission's Qutherity whould be understood ev being confined Orly Jo the Inveaifigntion of xiclayi ghte pilegedly violated 10 1 cights, @nd +ho4 Y Fhe civil @nd pow Gis CPFo pot civil BMd Poliztel eights, their privilege 42 engeVE in business" Issue Whether or not #ne public respondent hay jurudiction to invertigare tne alleged Violations of $n “business righty’ of te private repenciente whese stalls wee demoted br Ihe pe: authority Given Sy the Moyer of Qucren City. Rutine: The universa! pecl9r ation of Human Right, 9 well as, or more eed Sievity, $e 3aternstions\ Cxenant Eeoromie, Foca! nd Guiturdi Rights pri Sateenabional covenant on Gvit Bnd political Rights, wuggests 10Dato dine scope ef human righty Con be undervtood te include there hv relate to an individ atk soto ewnomie, cultural, politveal end ov. celationn 34 Hnus seems to lovely identity jhe term to the univeue pacpted Insite god atirivuter Of an Indivicl¥al, Bleng with what 1S Generally sonidered to be is inherent And indlionaele rights, encompassing aimat ail a pects of iifes