SIMON, JR.

vs COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

FACTS: On July 23, 1990, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued and order, directing the petitioners
"to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA pending the resolution of the
vendors/squatters complaint before the Commission" and ordering said petitioners to appear before the CHR.
On September 10, 1990, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss questioning CHR's jurisdiction and supplemental
motion to dismiss was filed on September 18, 1990 stating that Commissioners' authority should be understood
as being confined only to the investigation of violations of civil and political rights, and that "the rights
allegedly violated in this case were not civil and political rights, but their privilege to engage in business".
On March 1, 1991, the CHR issued and Order denying petitioners' motion and supplemental motion to dismiss.
And petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied also in an Order, dated April 25, 1991.
The Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition, praying for a restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Petitioner also prayed to prohibit CHR from further hearing and investigating CHR Case No. 90-1580, entitled
"Ferno, et.al vs. Quimpo, et.al".

ISSUE: Is the issuance of an "order to desist" within the extent of the authority and power of the CRH?

HELD: No, the issuance of an "order to desist" is not within the extent of authority and power of the CHR.
Article XIII, Section 18(1), provides the power and functions of the CHR to "investigate, on its own or on
complaint by any part, all forms of human rights violation, involving civil and political rights". The "order to
desist" however is not investigatory in character but an adjudicative power that it does not possess. The
Constitutional provision directing the CHR to provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the
underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection may not be construed to confer
jurisdiction on the Commission to issue an restraining order or writ of injunction, for it were the intention, the
Constitution would have expressly said so. Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to
issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued by the Judge in any court in which the
action is pending or by a Justice of the CA or of the SC. The writ prayed for the petition is granted. The CHR is
hereby prohibited from further proceeding with CHR Case No. 90-1580.

U.S. Vs. ANG TANG HO

FACTS: In July 1919, the Philippine Legislature (during special session) passed and approved Act No. 2868
entitled An Act Penalizing the Monopoly and Hoarding of Rice, Palay and Corn. The said act, under
extraordinary circumstances, authorizes the Governor General (GG) to issue the necessary Rules and
Regulations in regulating the distribution of such products. Pursuant to this Act, in August 1919, the GG issued
Executive Order No. 53 which was published on August 20, 1919. The said EO fixed the price at which rice
should be sold. On the other hand, Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer, sold a ganta of rice to Pedro Trinidad at the price
of eighty centavos. The said amount was way higher than that prescribed by the EO. The sale was done on the
6th of August 1919. On August 8, 1919, he was charged for violation of the said EO. He was found guilty as
charged and was sentenced to 5 months imprisonment plus a P500.00 fine. He appealed the sentence countering
that there is an undue delegation of power to the Governor General.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation to the Governor General?

HELD: First of, Ang Tang Hos conviction must be reversed because he committed the act prior to the
publication of the EO. Hence, he cannot be ex post facto charged of the crime. Further, one cannot be convicted
of a violation of a law or of an order issued pursuant to the law when both the law and the order fail to set up an
ascertainable standard of guilt.
Anent the issue of undue delegation, the said Act wholly fails to provide definitely and clearly what the standard
policy should contain, so that it could be put in use as a uniform policy required to take the place of all others
without the determination of the insurance commissioner in respect to matters involving the exercise of a
legislative discretion that could not be delegated, and without which the act could not possibly be put in use.
The law must be complete in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the legislative branch of the government
and nothing must be left to the judgment of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the legislature, so that,
in form and substance, it is a law in all its details in presenti, but which may be left to take effect in future, if
necessary, upon the ascertainment of any prescribed fact or event.

Simon Jr. v. CHR

human rights; civil rights; political rights Human rights generic term; civil rights those rights that
belong to every citizen or inhabitant of the state or country [by virtue of his citizenship in the country] and are
not connected with the organization or administration of government (marriage, equal protection, freedom of
contract etc.); Political rights right to participate, directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration
of government (suffrage, run for public office); CHR focus on SEVERE cases of human rights violations
(right of political detainees, treatment of prisoners, fair and public trials etc.); CHR can cite or hold any person
in direct or indirect contempt but not order them to desist.
The Commission on Human Rights has no power to issue a restraining order or a writ of injunction and has no
power to cite for contempt for violation of the restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction. The cease
and desist order, according to the Court, is a semantic Interplay for a restraining order. Its power to cite for
contempt should be understood to apply only to violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of
procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial powers, which it is constitutionally authorized to adopt.

ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES PRINCIPLES
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.

ARTICLE XIII
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 17.
1. There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on Human Rights.
2. The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-born citizens
of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. The term of office and other
qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission shall be provided by law.
3. Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights shall
continue to exercise its present functions and powers.
4. The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly released.
Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions:
1. Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil
and political rights;
2. Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
3. Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the
Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid
services to the under-privileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection;
4. Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
5. Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the
primacy of human rights;
6. Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation
to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;

7. Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights;
8. Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or
other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or
under its authority;
9. Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions;
10. Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
11. Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.
Section 19. The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the
authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendations.

U.S. Vs. ANG TANG HO

In the case of U.S. vs Ang Tang Ho, the principle of checks and balances- the system which gives one
department certain powers which they may restrain other department from exceeding constitutionality, The
congress by law explicitly delegated its legislative powers to the Governor-General by giving the GovernorGeneral the power to fix the price of rice.

The principle of checks and balances was applied in this case by analyzing Republic Act 2868 which was
violated by Ang Tang Ho. When the Judicial Department is faced with the question of the constitutionality of an
act, the Judicial Department which is represented by the Supreme Court which has the power to interpret the
law by construing the provision, they found out that RA 2868 is void and unconstitutional and thus, reversing
the decision of the lower court. The system of check and balances work by giving the 3 departments of the
government certain powers. The Executive Department has the power to enforce the law, the Legisative
Department has the power to make the law and the Judicial Department has the power to interpret the law.

The separation of power is closely related to system of checks and balances since the powers of each
department of the government was provided by the constitution and these departments must not exceed
constitutionality.