SIMON VS CHR

FACTS:
The case all started when a "Demolition Notice," dated 9 July
1990, signed by Carlos Quimpo (one of the petitioners) in his
capacity as an Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated
Hawkers Management Council under the Office of the City Mayor,
was sent to, and received by, the private respondents (being the
officers and members of the North EDSA Vendors Association,
Incorporated). In said notice, the respondents were given a grace-
period of three (3) days (up to 12 July 1990) within which to vacate
the questioned premises of North EDSA.1 Prior to their receipt of
the demolition notice, the private respondents were informed by
petitioner Quimpo that their stalls should be removed to give way
to the "People's Park".  
On 12 July 1990, the group, led by their President
Roque Fermo, filed a letter-complaint (Pinag-
samang Sinumpaang Salaysay) with the CHR
against the petitioners, asking the late CHR
Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter
to be addressed to then Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr.,
of Quezon City to stop the demolition of the
private respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores,
and carinderia along North EDSA.
he complaint was docketed as CHR Case No. 90-1580.3 On 23 July 1990,
the CHR issued an Order, directing the petitioners "to desist from
demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending resolution of
the vendors/squatters' complaint before the Commission" and ordering
said petitioners to appear before the CHR.4
On the basis of the sworn statements submitted by the private
respondents on 31 July 1990, as well as CHR's own ocular inspection, and
convinced that on 28 July 1990 the petitioners carried out the demolition
of private respondents' stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia,5 the CHR, in
its resolution of 1 August 1990, ordered the disbursement of financial
assistance of not more than P200,000.00 in favor of the private
respondents to purchase light housing materials and food under the
Commission's supervision and again directed the petitioners to "desist
from further demolition, with the warning that violation of said order
would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest."6
IMPORTANT POINTS
 Constitutional Law; Bill of Rights; Human Rights;
Commission on Human Rights; Creation of. Simon, Jr. vs.
Commission on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 117, G.R. No.
100150 January 5, 1994

The Commission on Human Rights was created by the 1987

Constitution. It was formally constituted by then President Corazon
Aquino via Executive Order No. 163, issued on 5 May 1987, in the
exercise of her legislative power at the time. It succeeded, but so
superseded as well, the Presidential Committee on Human Rights.
Simon, Jr. vs. Commission on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 117, G.R.
No. 100150 January 5, 1994
The phrase “human rights” Simon, Jr. vs. Commission on
Human Rights, 229 SCRA 117, G.R. No. 100150 January 5, 1994

It can hardly be disputed that the phrase “human rights” is so generic a term that any attempt to define it, albeit

not a few have tried, could at best be described as inconclusive. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or

more specifically, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, suggests that the scope of human rights can be understood to include

those that relate to an individual’s social, economic, cultural, political and civil relations. It thus seems to closely

identify the term to the universally accepted traits and attributes of an individual, along with what is generally

considered to be his inherent and inalienable rights, encompassing almost all aspects of life. Simon, Jr. vs.

Commission on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 117, G.R. No. 100150 January 5, 1994
“Civil Rights”, defined
• .—The term “civil rights,” has been defined as referring—“(to) those (rights) that belong to every
citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected
with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property,
marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as otherwise defined civil
rights are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Such
term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil
action.” Also quite often mentioned are the guarantees against involuntary servitude, religious
persecution, unreasonable searches and seizures, and imprisonment for debt.
“Political Rights”, explained.

• Political rights, on the other hand, are said to refer to the right to
participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or
administration of government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold
public office, the right of petition and, in general, the right
appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government.
The Constitutional Commission delegates envisioned a
Commission on Human Rights that would focus its attention to
the more severe cases of human rights violations.

• “(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 Constitutional Commission delegates envisioned a
Commission on Human Rights that would focus its attention to
the more severe cases of human rights violations.

• While the enumeration has not likely been meant to have any preclusive effect,
more than just expressing a statement of priority, it is, nonetheless, significant for
the tone it has set. In any event, the delegates did not apparently take comfort in
peremptorily making a conclusive delineation of the CHR’s scope of investigatorial
jurisdiction. They have thus seen it fit to resolve, instead, that “Congress may
provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the
authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendation.”
Demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores and
carinderia does not fall within the compartment
of “human rights violations involving civil and
political rights” intended by the Constitution.
SORIANO VS PINEDA
OPOSA VS FACTORAN
BALDOZA VS DIMAANO
FACTS:
In a verified letter-complaint dated September 9, 1975, the Municipal Secretary
of Taal, Batangas, charges Municipal Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano, of the same
municipality, with abuse of authority in refusing to allow employees of the
Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court
to secure data in connection with their contemplated report on the peace and
order conditions of the said municipality.
 
Respondent answered that there has never been an intention to refuse
access to official court records but that the same is always subject to reasonable
regulation as to who, when, where and how they may be inspected. He further
asserted that a court has the power to prevent an improper use or inspection of its
records and furnishing copies may be refuse when the motivation is not serious
and legitimate interest, out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to gratify
private site or promote public scandal.
The case was thereupon referred to Judge
Francisco Mat. Riodique for investigation and
report. At the preliminary hearing on October
16, 1975, Taal Mayor Corazon A. Caniza
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint but
the motion was denied by the Investigating
Judge. After formal investigation, he
recommended the exoneration of respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the rules and
conditions imposed by Judge Dimaano on the
inspection of the docket books infringe upon
the right of individuals to information.
RULING:
No. As found by the Investigating Judge, the respondent allowed the
complainant to open and view the docket books of respondent certain conditions
and under his control and supervision. It has not been shown that the rules and
conditions imposed by the respondent were unreasonable. The access to public
records predicated on the right of the people to acquire information on matters of
public concern.
 
The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the
fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. Information is
needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the times.
As has been aptly observed: "Maintaining the flow of such information depends on
protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if either process is
interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases.” However, restrictions on access to certain
records may be imposed by law. Thus, access restrictions imposed to control civil
insurrection have been permitted upon a showing of immediate and impending
danger that renders ordinary means of control inadequate to maintain order.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Judges; Constitutional law; Courts; Access to judicial
records may not be prohibited; however, a judge may
regulate examination of such
• As found by the Investigating Judge, the respondent allowed the complainant to open
and view the docket books of respondent under certain conditions and under his
control and supervision. It has not been shown that the rules and conditions imposed
by the respondent were unreasonable. The access to public records is predicated on
the right of the people to acquire information on matters of public concern.
Undoubtedly in a democracy, the public has a legitimate interest in matters of social
and political significance. In an earlier case, this Court held that mandamus would lie
to compel the Secretary of Justice and the Register of Deeds to examine the records
of the latter office. Predicating the right to examine the records on statutory
provisions, and to a certain degree by general principles of democratic institutions,
this Court stated that while the Register of Deeds has discretion to exercise as to the
manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine or copy the records in his office
may exercise their rights, such power does not carry with it authority to prohibit.
While public is entitled to information on matters of
public concern, restrictions on access to certain records
may be imposed by law
• The New Constitution now expressly recognizes that the people are entitled to
information on matters of public concern and thus are expressly granted access to
official records, as well as documents of official acts, or transactions, or decisions,
subject to such limitations imposed by law. The incorporation of this right in the
Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free exchange of information
in a democracy. There can be no realistic perception by the public of the nation’s
problems, nor a meaningful democratic decision making if they are denied access to
information of general interest. Information is needed to enable the members of
society to cope with the exigencies of the times. x x x However, restrictions on access
to certain records may be imposed by law. Thus, access restrictions imposed to
control civil insurrection have been permitted upon a showing of immediate and
impending danger that renders ordinary means of control inadequate to maintain
order. Baldoza vs. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14, Adm. Matter No. 1120-MJ May 5, 1976
DAVID VS ARROYO
FACTS:
On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20th
Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo issued
PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency and call upon the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National
Police (PNP), to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless
violence in the country. The Office of the President announced the
cancellation of all programs and activities related to the 20th
anniversary celebration of Edsa People Power I; and revoked the
permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments and
dispersal of the rallyists along EDSA. The police arrested (without
warrant) petitioner Randolf S. David, a professor at the University
of the Philippines and newspaper columnist. Also arrested was his
companion, Ronald Llamas, president of party-list Akbayan.
In the early morning of February 25, 2006, operatives of the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the PNP, on
the basis of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, raided the Daily
Tribune offices in Manila and attempt to arrest was made against
representatives of ANAKPAWIS, GABRIELA and BAYAN
MUNA whom suspected of inciting to sedition and rebellion. On
March 3, 2006, President Arroyo issued PP 1021 declaring that the
state of national emergency has ceased to exist. Petitioners filed
seven (7) certiorari with the Supreme Court and three (3) of those
petitions impleaded President Arroyo as respondent questioning the
legality of the proclamation, alleging that it encroaches the
emergency powers of Congress and it violates the constitutional
guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech and assembly.
ISSUE:

1.) Whether or not Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 is

unconstitutional?
2.) Whether or not the warantless arrest of Randolf S. David and
Ronald Llamas and the dispersal of KMU and NAFLU-KMU
members during rallies were valid?
3.) Whether or not proper to implead President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo as respondent in the petitions?
4.) Whether or not the petitioners have a legal standing in
questioning the constitutionality of the proclamation?
5.) Whether or not the concurrence of Congress is necessary
whenever the alarming powers incident to Martial Law are used?
RULING:
1.) The Court finds and so holds that PP 1017 is constitutional
insofar as it constitutes a call by the President for the AFP to
prevent or suppress lawless violence whenever becomes necessary
as prescribe under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution.
However, there were extraneous provisions giving the President
express or implied power
(A) To issue decrees; (" Legislative power is peculiarly within the
province of the Legislature. Section 1, Article VI categorically
states that "[t]he legislative power shall be vested in the Congress
of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives.")
(B) To direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws even those
not related to lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by
the President[The absence of a law defining "acts of terrorism"
may result in abuse and oppression on the part of the police or
military]; and
(C) To impose standards on media or any form of prior restraint on
the press, are ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Court also rules
that under Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution, the President,
in the absence of legislative legislation, cannot take over privately-
owned public utility and private business affected with public
interest. Therefore, the PP No. 1017 is only partly unconstitutional.
2.) The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas;
the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU
members during their rallies are illegal, in the absence of proof that
these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition
of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as
well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and whimsical
seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are
declared unconstitutional because there was no clear and present
danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent.
3.) It is not proper to implead President Arroyo as respondent.
Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office
or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal
case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or
law.
4.) This Court adopted the “direct injury” test in our jurisdiction.
In People v. Vera, it held that the person who impugns the validity
of a statute must have “a personal and substantial interest in the
case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a
result.” Therefore, the court ruled that the petitioners have a locus
standi, for they suffered “direct injury” resulting from “illegal
arrest” and “unlawful search” committed by police operatives
pursuant to PP 1017.
5.) Under Article XII Section 17 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, in times of national
emergency, when the public interest so requires, the
President may temporarily take over a privately
owned public utility or business affected with public
interest only if there is congressional authority or
approval. There must enactment of appropriate
legislation prescribing the terms and conditions
under which the President may exercise the powers
that will serves as the best assurance that due process
of law would be observed.
 ALMARIO VS
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY