To Examine, Explore, Inquire or Delve To Adjudge, Arbitrate, Judge, Decide

G.R. No. 96681 December 2, 1991; HON.
ISIDRO CARIO, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department

of Education, Culture & Sports, DR. ERLINDA LOLARGA, in her capacity as Superintendent of City
Schools of Manila, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, GRACIANO BUDOY, JULIETA
BABARAN, ELSA IBABAO, HELEN LUPO, AMPARO GONZALES, LUZ DEL CASTILLO, ELSA REYES and
APOLINARIO ESBER, respondents.; NARVASA, J.:
FACTS:
Some 800 public school teachers undertook mass concerted actions to protest the alleged failure of public
authorities to act upon their grievances. The mass actions consisted in staying away from their classes, converging
at the Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering in peacable assemblies, etc. The Secretary of Education served them with an
order to return to work within 24 hours or face dismissal. For failure to heed the return-to-work order, eight teachers at
the Ramon Magsaysay High School were administratively charged, preventively suspended for 90 days pursuant to
sec. 41, P.D. 807 and temporarily replaced. An investigation committee was consequently formed to hear the charges.
When their motion for suspension was denied by the Investigating Committee, said teachers staged a walkout
signifying their intent to boycott the entire proceedings. Eventually, Secretary Carino decreed dismissal from service of
Esber and the suspension for 9 months of Babaran, Budoy and del Castillo. In the meantime, a case was filed with
RTC, raising the issue of violation of the right of the striking teachers to due process of law. The case was eventually
elevated to SC. Also in the meantime, the respondent teachers submitted sworn statements to Commission on Human
Rights to complain that while they were participating in peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of their
replacement as teachers, allegedly without notice and consequently for reasons completely unknown to them.
While the case was pending with CHR, SC promulgated its resolution over the cases filed with it earlier, upholding the
Sec. Carinos act of issuing the return-to-work orders. Despite this, CHR continued hearing its case and held that the
striking teachers were denied due process of law;they should not have been replaced without a chance to reply to
the administrative charges; there had been violation of their civil and political rights which the Commission is
empowered to investigate.
ISSUE: WON CHR has jurisdiction to try and hear the issues involved
HELD: NO.
CHR doesnt have this power. It was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in
this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter.
The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e.,
receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political
rights. But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even
a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a
controversy is not a judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and
making factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual
conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively,
subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function, to repeat, the Commission does
not have.
Power to Investigate
The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission the power to investigate all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights. It can exercise that power on its own initiative or on complaint of any
person. It may exercise that power pursuant to such rules of procedure as it may adopt and, in cases of violations of
said rules, cite for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court. In the course of any investigation conducted by it
or under its authority, it may 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. It may also request the assistance of
any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions, in the conduct of its investigation or in
extending such remedy as may be required by its findings.
But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies
do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical sense, these terms have well
understood and quite distinct meanings.
Investigate vs. Adjudicate
COMMON DEFINITION
INVESTIGATE
To examine, explore, inquire or delve
ADJUDICATE
To adjudge, arbitrate, judge, decide,
or probe into, research on, study. The

dictionary definition of "investigate" is
"to observe or study closely: inquire
into systematically. "to search or
inquire into: . . . to subject to an official
probe . . .: to conduct an official
inquiry." The purpose of investigation,
of course, is to discover, to find out, to
learn, obtain information. Nowhere
included or intimated is the notion of
settling, deciding or resolving a
controversy involved in the facts
inquired into by application of the law
to the facts established by the inquiry.
determine, resolve, rule on, settle. The

dictionary defines the term as "to settle
finally (the rights and duties of the
parties to a court case) on the merits of
issues raised: . . . to pass judgment on:
settle judicially: . . . act as judge." And
"adjudge" means "to decide or rule
upon as a judge or with judicial or
quasi-judicial powers: . . . to award or
grant judicially in a case of controversy
. . . ."
LEGAL DEFINITION
Essentially the same as the common

definiton: "(t)o follow up step by step
by patient inquiry or observation. To
trace or track; to search into; to
examine and inquire into with care and
accuracy; to find out by careful
inquisition; examination; the taking of
evidence; a legal inquiry;" "to inquire;
to make an investigation,"
"investigation" being in turn describe
as "(a)n administrative function, the
exercise of which ordinarily does not
require a hearing. 2 Am J2d Adm L
Sec. 257; . . . an inquiry, judicial or
otherwise, for the discovery and
collection of facts concerning a certain
matter or matters."
"To settle in the exercise of judicial

authority. To determine finally.
Synonymous with adjudge in its
strictest sense;" and "adjudge" means:
"To pass on judicially, to decide, settle
or decree, or to sentence or
condemn. . . . Implies a judicial
determination of a fact, and the entry of
a judgment."
DOES CHR HAVE THIS POWER?
YES
NO. But Sec. of Educ has it.
Hence, it is that the CHR having merely the power "to investigate," cannot and should not "try and resolve on the
merits" (adjudicate) the matters involved in Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775, as it has announced it means to
do; and it cannot do so even if there be a claim that in the administrative disciplinary proceedings against the teachers
in question, initiated and conducted by the DECS, their human rights, or civil or political rights had been transgressed.
More particularly, the Commission has no power to "resolve on the merits" the question of (a) whether or not the mass
concerted actions engaged in by the teachers constitute and are prohibited or otherwise restricted by law; (b) whether
or not the act of carrying on and taking part in those actions, and the failure of the teachers to discontinue those
actions, and return to their classes despite the order to this effect by the Secretary of Education, constitute infractions
of relevant rules and regulations warranting administrative disciplinary sanctions, or are justified by the grievances
complained of by them; and (c) what where the particular acts done by each individual teacher and what sanctions, if
any, may properly be imposed for said acts or omissions.
Who has Power to Adjudicate?
These are matters within the original jurisdiction of the Sec. of Education, being within the scope of the disciplinary
powers granted to him under the Civil Service Law, and also, within the appellate jurisdiction of the CSC.
Manner of Appeal
Now, it is quite obvious that whether or not the conclusions reached by the Secretary of Education in disciplinary
cases are correct and are adequately based on substantial evidence; whether or not the proceedings themselves are
void or defective in not having accorded the respondents due process; and whether or not the Secretary of Education
had in truth committed "human rights violations involving civil and political rights," are matters which may be passed
upon and determined through a motion for reconsideration addressed to the Secretary Education himself, and in the
event of an adverse verdict, may be reviewed by the Civil Service Commission and eventually the Supreme Court.

To Examine, Explore, Inquire or Delve To Adjudge, Arbitrate, Judge, Decide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

To Examine, Explore, Inquire or Delve To Adjudge, Arbitrate, Judge, Decide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

To Examine, Explore, Inquire or Delve To Adjudge, Arbitrate, Judge, Decide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 96681 December 2, 1991; HON.

ISIDRO CARIO, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department

or probe into, research on, study. The

determine, resolve, rule on, settle. The

Essentially the same as the common

"To settle in the exercise of judicial

DOES CHR HAVE THIS POWER?

NO. But Sec. of Educ has it.

You might also like